[00:49] fta: that's fine, I'd prefer to keep changes like that only to major version bumps [00:49] micahg, it's the idea, it will be 10->11 [00:50] unless there's another 10 in between with security fixes [00:51] fta: right, well, last bump was only about 3 weeks ago, so I figure at least one more 10.x [01:31] fta: there's a new ioquake which might solve your issue, can I push to a test PPA for you or would you rather I push packages up to my p.u.c page? [04:46] <[reed]> jcastro: well, I wore a Mozilla t-shirt today [04:46] <[reed]> that's about it [04:47] <[reed]> I had actual work to do :0 [05:03] [reed]: aww in sv? [05:04] <[reed]> by "sv", do you mean "silicon valley" or "sunnyvale"... note that my current employer is in palo alto :) [05:05] <[reed]> kbrosnan: ^ [05:05] the former [05:06] in MV [05:06] <[reed]> ? [05:07] i'm in mv. [05:08] <[reed]> ah, cool [05:08] <[reed]> for how long? [05:08] till August [05:08] <[reed]> ah, awesome [05:08] working with aakash and tony [05:08] on mobile firefox [05:08] <[reed]> I may come over Thursday for lunch [05:09] <[reed]> I need to meet with some people [05:09] i'm at @ 3rd floor near warp core most of the time [05:11] <[reed]> you're more than welcome to come check out my work and eat lunch/dinner [05:11] <[reed]> or come visit me in the city :) [06:29] Can we install firefox4 from the ppa and keep the old firefox with our profiles for 3.6.15 separate? [06:48] micahg: ah I didn't know that, thanks! [07:11] linuxtech, no, you can't do that [11:15] o/ [11:53] chrisccoulson: porting eclipse to use webkit would be cool [11:53] bdrung, the latest version can already use webkit [11:53] i was questioning the dependency on swt though, as i thought that eclipse had its own copy [11:55] micahg, jdstrand_: fyi, security update of ch10 planed for tomorrow [11:56] planed? planned? [11:56] well, expected tomorrow [12:02] hahahhhahahhahahhaahahahahahahah [12:27] chrisccoulson: are language packs available for FF4 in the PPA? [12:28] mdeslaur, they're not unfortunately. it's pretty difficult for me to do that because the 3.6 translations are bundled with our language packs [12:28] i'm not sure how else to support that [12:28] chrisccoulson: oh, hrm [12:28] ideas welcome ;) [12:28] chrisccoulson: are there plans to update to 4.0 in maverick? [12:28] chrisccoulson: yes, split them all out again :) [12:29] mdeslaur, yeah, i want to split them, so i can support translated builds in PPAs ;) [12:29] maverick probably won't get 4.0, but will get another version [12:29] chrisccoulson: cool, thanks [12:34] chrisccoulson: another version? seriously? I though we were doing rolling releases now? [12:34] mdeslaur, maverick will likely get 5.0 ;) [12:36] oh, so they will still do some security fixes for 3.6? [12:42] mdeslaur, yeah, not sure for how long though [12:43] I see === m_conley_away is now known as m_conley === jdstrand_ is now known as jdstrand [13:32] fta: ACK [13:49] i guess we skipped tb32. do we have a build for enigmail for tb33? [14:00] gnomefreak: upstream skipped 3.2 [14:05] http://slides.html5rocks.com/#speech-input nie [14:05] *nice [14:07] micahg: thanks [14:09] this is odd. using minefield i get the following message "Your browser either doesn't support or you have disabled JavaScript." [14:12] i have IcedTea-Web Plugin (using IcedTea-Web 1.1pre (1.1~20110320-0ubuntu1)) [14:14] supporting LiveConnect/JavaScript. [14:14] so either minefield or icedtea is screwed up [14:14] or incompatible [14:17] it is the same for official ff package in repos 4.0rc2 [14:18] and chrome :( [14:21] micahg, ch is now complaining our system flash is out dated :( [14:23] mdeslaur: ^^ [14:23] fta: I'm currently working on flashplugin-nonfree updates...they should come out either this afternoon or tomorrow [14:24] fta: our adobe-flashplugin packages are already released [14:24] mdeslaur, what's the difference between those two? [14:25] fta: adobe-flashplugin is in the partner repo...flashplugin-nonfree is in multiverse [14:25] why maintain two? [14:25] fta: adobe-flashplugin don't install on amd64, flashplugin-nonfree integrated with nspluginwrapper on amd64 [14:25] oh [14:25] fta: adobe won't let us ship the official packages (adobe-flashplugin) on amd64 [14:26] AFAIK [14:26] can someone please test this link. let me know if it says you have javascript disabled or not installed enigmail.mozdev.org/download/download-static.php.html [14:27] wait adobe wont let us package and distribute falsh for 64bit? [14:27] flash even [14:28] gnomefreak: I don't know the details...all I know is the "adobe-flashplugin" package in the partner repo doesn't install on amd64 [14:28] gnomefreak: I _assume_ they prefer it not be used on amd64 with the nspluginwrapper hack [14:29] gnomefreak: I don't actually know anything about that, so don't take anything I say seriously on that subject :) [14:29] wait are you trying to use the 64bit package or the 32bit+nsplugin... [14:29] iirc they still havent finished 64bit but they atleast have one [14:30] gnomefreak: thay have a preview version of the 64 bit one that doesn't get updated for security issues. We don't ship that. [14:31] i didnt relize it was a prefiew i thought it was normal package. alot of people want the 64bit package included but i guess that is a bad idea atm [14:32] gnomefreak: yes [14:32] gnomefreak: it's available in my PPA is anybody wants to install it at their risk [14:33] i wish they'd just release that, so we can bury nspluginwrapper in a very deep grave [15:29] youtube html5 WIN! inf FF4 any video > right click "save as" > rick roll! [20:24] doh! nice changelogs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-2d/+bug/724717/comments/11 [20:24] Launchpad bug 724717 in unity-2d "Indicators fail to load" [Critical,Fix released] === m_conley is now known as m_conley_away [20:55] chrisccoulson, are you annoyed as i am with all of the ubuntuzilla, ppa, tarball madness. the entire ubuntu userbase comes down with a collective case of the derpes whenever a new fx comes out. [20:55] what do you mean? [20:58] it's not readily apparent to people that the stable ppa is the best solution [20:58] they dload the tarball: "wah, my fonts are ****ed" [20:58] they use ubuntuzilla: "what the hell is the /opt folder? where's the binary?" [20:59] well, ubuntuzilla is dead anyway [21:00] so that's 1 less option [21:00] and nothing annoys me (well, not much anyway) ;) [21:00] linux needs an instant-gratification way to install firefox with proper folder structure and linking [21:00] packagekit underdelivers [21:01] well, that's what PPA's and deb packages provide, no? [21:01] well, i don't see mozilla doing a deb/rpm repo [21:01] and the sru process for firefox takes too long [21:02] well, we don't follow the sru process for firefox [21:03] is there a fancy name or initialism i can use? [21:03] and we release security updates within a day of mozilla normally (hardly, "long") [21:03] and in future, we'll be pushing major updates out to all releases at the same time too [21:04] nice. [21:04] who is getting 4.0 btw? karmic, lucid, maverick, hardy? [21:04] karmic and lucid definitely aren't [21:04] oops [21:04] i meant karmic ;) [21:04] lucid and maverick most likely won't, but they will most likely get 5 [21:05] really? [21:05] but i have absolutely no idea of what mozilla's plans are for supporting 3.6, so i'm basing my prediction on the results of my crystal ball right now [21:05] isn't that a bit risky? i don't trust the new mozilla roadmap. [21:06] anything i tell you now is just a complete guess tbh [21:06] i don't know if 3.6 will be supported for 1 week, 1 month, 2 months, 6 months, 1 year, 10 years [21:08] would it be possible to issue a security update for all supported releases that changes the greyed out 'upgrade firefox' menu item into an add-apt-repository command that adds the stable ppa? [21:09] you'd avoid the issue of directly packaging for a release with the main archive [21:10] absolutely not. that wouldn't be a security update for a start [21:10] and where is that string visible? [21:10] we disable the updater, so there should be no menu item at all [21:10] (there isn't one here) [21:11] ah, it's gone. you used to be able to gksu firefox & [21:11] yeah, it's been gone for a long time ;) [21:11] but looking forward, is that a viable option [21:12] make the user assume all risk [21:12] not really, especially seeing as this won't be a problem in future (where we're pushing out major updates to all supported releases at the same time) [21:13] it will be just like chromium then ;) [21:13] ah, nice [21:14] this still the latest spec? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Lucid/FirefoxNewSupportModel [21:15] chrisccoulson, chromium still suffers from n days in the security queue [21:15] + delay [21:15] fta - hmm, waiting on armel and other arches by any chance? [21:16] only partially, it's also waiting for human resources and testers [21:16] LLStarks, yeah, sort of. that's a bit out of date now, and we used that spec to drive 3.6 to all supported releases [21:16] from what i can see [21:16] but we will be going 1 step further now [21:18] fta - hmmm, that's a pain. do you run the test-suite in chromium? (i think i've asked you this already) [21:18] i'd like the test-suite in firefox to reduce some of the human effort required to test :) [21:19] i used to, for a long time, but i had to disable so many tests because of the build env restrictions that it didn't make sense anymore [21:19] fta - which sorts of restrictions? just network access or other restrictions? [21:20] not to mention that it tooks hours to build, and even more hours to run [21:20] yep, no network, no display, no input [21:20] nowadays, it's also no GPU [21:20] fta - did you try xvfb for the display? [21:21] the network access is a pain [21:21] and do automated tests require input? i don't have an issue with that particularly [21:21] sure, i had a long pipe with xvfb, timeout, gdb [21:23] chrisccoulson, http://paste.ubuntu.com/584498/ [21:27] fta: the biggest delay on chromium ATM is the build time :) [21:31] micahg, why do we even have to wait for arm? it's different in all matters, why not split the uploads [21:34] fta: not going to have 2 source packages for the same thing, the only reason we do it for openjdk is that the newer openjdk doesn't work with arm yet [21:35] no, not 2 src packages, but upload once the 32/64 builds are tested [21:35] that's what most of the users need [21:36] fta: I don't think we can split the publishing like that, jdstrand ^^ [21:37] micahg, when we find something wrong with arm, we postpone the fix until the next upgrade anyway [21:38] fta: that depends on how badly the update is needed as well [21:38] hot security fixes for the masses prevail over arm fixes [21:38] well, until now at least [21:39] LP does not allow pocket copying of a build after the fact [21:40] eg, we publish i386 and amd64 then publish when arm is not done [21:40] arm is left out in the cold and needs a new source upload [21:40] we have skipped arm in the past for chromium with important fixes, fwiw [21:41] tomorrow's update will also have a long list of hot fixes [21:48] ..along with arm fixes from the previous upload :P [21:49] fta: heh, we'll play it by ear, but the earlier tomorrow the better as we generally don't like pushing out fixes on Friday [21:49] s/don't like/try to avoid/ :) [21:50] not my call, i'm waiting for the upstream tag [21:50] fta: I understand, not trying to pressure you :) [21:50] i have an idea of what it will be but i won't be sure until it's out [22:25] micahg, libvpx 0.9.6 in natty is a security update, why isn't it in maverick and lucid? [22:25] fta: we generally patch stable releases vs full updates [22:26] makes stuff hard to follow.. [22:26] fta: there's more than the one that was backported to 0.9.5? [22:26] not sure [22:26] I don't see any open CVEs [22:27] it seems it fixed at least cve-2010-4489 [22:27] fta: libvpx, as used in Google Chrome before 8.0.552.215 and possibly other products, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) via a crafted WebM video. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of a regression. (http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2010-4489) [22:27] fta: right, that was backported to 0.9.5-2 [22:28] and that was pushed to stable releases when chromium upped the build-dep [22:28] s/build-dep/dep [23:42] gfd firefox. it won't let me click certain links. [23:42] I WANT MY FIVE DAY FORECAST! [23:46] LLStarks: I'm using forecastfox w/out issue in firefox 4 [23:46] yeah, that's not it [23:46] i can't click on page links after the page loads [23:46] just the tabs and interface [23:47] i think shifting window focus unlocks it or something [23:47] yup. [23:48] okay, this sucks [23:49] can't click or highlight anything [23:49] no right-click