[00:49] <micahg> fta: that's fine, I'd prefer to keep changes like that only to major version bumps
[00:49] <fta> micahg, it's the idea, it will be 10->11
[00:50] <fta> unless there's another 10 in between with security fixes
[00:51] <micahg> fta: right, well, last bump was only about 3 weeks ago, so I figure at least one more 10.x
[01:31] <micahg> 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] <kbrosnan> [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] <kbrosnan> the former
[05:06] <kbrosnan> in MV
[05:06] <[reed]> ?
[05:07] <kbrosnan> i'm in mv.
[05:08] <[reed]> ah, cool
[05:08] <[reed]> for how long?
[05:08] <kbrosnan> till August
[05:08] <[reed]> ah, awesome
[05:08] <kbrosnan> working with aakash and tony
[05:08] <kbrosnan> 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] <kbrosnan> 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] <linuxtech> Can we install firefox4 from the ppa and keep the old firefox with our profiles for 3.6.15 separate?
[06:48] <Dimmuxx> micahg: ah I didn't know that, thanks!
[07:11] <chrisccoulson> linuxtech, no, you can't do that
[11:15] <BUGabundo> o/
[11:53] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: porting eclipse to use webkit would be cool
[11:53] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, the latest version can already use webkit
[11:53] <chrisccoulson> i was questioning the dependency on swt though, as i thought that eclipse had its own copy
[11:55] <fta> micahg, jdstrand_: fyi, security update of ch10 planed for tomorrow
[11:56] <fta> planed? planned?
[11:56] <fta> well, expected tomorrow
[12:02] <BUGabundo> hahahhhahahhahahhaahahahahahahah
[12:27] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: are language packs available for FF4 in the PPA?
[12:28] <chrisccoulson> 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] <chrisccoulson> i'm not sure how else to support that
[12:28] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: oh, hrm
[12:28] <chrisccoulson> ideas welcome ;)
[12:28] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: are there plans to update to 4.0 in maverick?
[12:28] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: yes, split them all out again :)
[12:29] <chrisccoulson> mdeslaur, yeah, i want to split them, so i can support translated builds in PPAs ;)
[12:29] <chrisccoulson> maverick probably won't get 4.0, but will get another version
[12:29] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: cool, thanks
[12:34] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: another version? seriously? I though we were doing rolling releases now?
[12:34] <chrisccoulson> mdeslaur, maverick will likely get 5.0 ;)
[12:36] <mdeslaur> oh, so they will still do some security fixes for 3.6?
[12:42] <chrisccoulson> mdeslaur, yeah, not sure for how long though
[12:43] <mdeslaur> I see
[13:32] <micahg> fta: ACK
[13:49] <gnomefreak> i guess we skipped tb32. do we have a build for enigmail for tb33?
[14:00] <micahg> gnomefreak: upstream skipped 3.2
[14:05] <BUGabundo> http://slides.html5rocks.com/#speech-input nie
[14:05] <BUGabundo> *nice
[14:07] <gnomefreak> micahg: thanks
[14:09] <gnomefreak> this is odd. using minefield i get the following message "Your browser either doesn't support or you have disabled JavaScript."
[14:12] <gnomefreak> i have IcedTea-Web Plugin (using IcedTea-Web 1.1pre (1.1~20110320-0ubuntu1))
[14:14] <gnomefreak> supporting LiveConnect/JavaScript.
[14:14] <gnomefreak> so either minefield or icedtea is screwed up
[14:14] <gnomefreak> or incompatible
[14:17] <gnomefreak> it is the same for official ff package in repos 4.0rc2
[14:18] <gnomefreak> and chrome :(
[14:21] <fta> micahg, ch is now complaining our system flash is out dated :(
[14:23] <micahg> mdeslaur: ^^
[14:23] <mdeslaur> fta: I'm currently working on flashplugin-nonfree updates...they should come out either this afternoon or tomorrow
[14:24] <mdeslaur> fta: our adobe-flashplugin packages are already released
[14:24] <fta> mdeslaur, what's the difference between those two?
[14:25] <mdeslaur> fta: adobe-flashplugin is in the partner repo...flashplugin-nonfree is in multiverse
[14:25] <fta> why maintain two?
[14:25] <mdeslaur> fta: adobe-flashplugin don't install on amd64, flashplugin-nonfree integrated with nspluginwrapper on amd64
[14:25] <fta> oh
[14:25] <mdeslaur> fta: adobe won't let us ship the official packages (adobe-flashplugin) on amd64
[14:26] <mdeslaur> AFAIK
[14:26] <gnomefreak> 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] <gnomefreak> wait adobe wont let us package and distribute falsh for 64bit?
[14:27] <gnomefreak> flash even
[14:28] <mdeslaur> 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] <mdeslaur> gnomefreak: I _assume_ they prefer it not be used on amd64 with the nspluginwrapper hack
[14:29] <mdeslaur> gnomefreak: I don't actually know anything about that, so don't take anything I say seriously on that subject :)
[14:29] <gnomefreak> wait are you trying to use the 64bit package or the 32bit+nsplugin...
[14:29] <gnomefreak> iirc they still havent finished 64bit but they atleast have one
[14:30] <mdeslaur> 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] <gnomefreak> 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] <mdeslaur> gnomefreak: yes
[14:32] <mdeslaur> gnomefreak: it's available in my PPA is anybody wants to install it at their risk
[14:33] <chrisccoulson> i wish they'd just release that, so we can bury nspluginwrapper in a very deep grave
[15:29] <BUGabundo>  youtube html5 WIN! inf FF4 any video > right click "save as" > rick roll!
[20:24] <fta> doh! nice changelogs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-2d/+bug/724717/comments/11
[20:24] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 724717 in unity-2d "Indicators fail to load" [Critical,Fix released]
[20:55] <LLStarks> 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] <chrisccoulson> what do you mean?
[20:58] <LLStarks> it's not readily apparent to people that the stable ppa is the best solution
[20:58] <LLStarks> they dload the tarball: "wah, my fonts are ****ed"
[20:58] <LLStarks> they use ubuntuzilla: "what the hell is the /opt folder? where's the binary?"
[20:59] <chrisccoulson> well, ubuntuzilla is dead anyway
[21:00] <chrisccoulson> so that's 1 less option
[21:00] <chrisccoulson> and nothing annoys me (well, not much anyway) ;)
[21:00] <LLStarks> linux needs an instant-gratification way to install firefox with proper folder structure and linking
[21:00] <LLStarks> packagekit underdelivers
[21:01] <chrisccoulson> well, that's what PPA's and deb packages provide, no?
[21:01] <LLStarks> well, i don't see mozilla doing a deb/rpm repo
[21:01] <LLStarks> and the sru  process for firefox takes too long
[21:02] <chrisccoulson> well, we don't follow the sru process for firefox
[21:03] <LLStarks> is there a fancy name or initialism i can use?
[21:03] <chrisccoulson> and we release security updates within a day of mozilla normally (hardly, "long")
[21:03] <chrisccoulson> and in future, we'll be pushing major updates out to all releases at the same time too
[21:04] <LLStarks> nice.
[21:04] <LLStarks> who is getting 4.0 btw? karmic, lucid, maverick, hardy?
[21:04] <chrisccoulson> karmic and lucid definitely aren't
[21:04] <chrisccoulson> oops
[21:04] <chrisccoulson> i meant karmic ;)
[21:04] <chrisccoulson> lucid and maverick most likely won't, but they will most likely get 5
[21:05] <LLStarks> really?
[21:05] <chrisccoulson> 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] <LLStarks> isn't that a bit risky? i don't trust the new mozilla roadmap.
[21:06] <chrisccoulson> anything i tell you now is just a complete guess tbh
[21:06] <chrisccoulson> 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] <LLStarks> 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] <LLStarks> you'd avoid the issue of directly packaging for a release with the main archive
[21:10] <chrisccoulson> absolutely not. that wouldn't be a security update for a start
[21:10] <chrisccoulson> and where is that string visible?
[21:10] <chrisccoulson> we disable the updater, so there should be no menu item at all
[21:10] <chrisccoulson> (there isn't one here)
[21:11] <LLStarks> ah, it's gone. you used to be able to gksu firefox &
[21:11] <chrisccoulson> yeah, it's been gone for a long time ;)
[21:11] <LLStarks> but looking forward, is that a viable option
[21:12] <LLStarks> make the user assume all risk
[21:12] <chrisccoulson> 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] <chrisccoulson> it will be just like chromium then ;)
[21:13] <LLStarks> ah, nice
[21:14] <LLStarks> this still the latest spec? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Lucid/FirefoxNewSupportModel
[21:15] <fta> chrisccoulson, chromium still suffers from n days in the security queue
[21:15] <fta> + delay
[21:15] <chrisccoulson> fta - hmm, waiting on armel and other arches by any chance?
[21:16] <fta> only partially, it's also waiting for human resources and testers
[21:16] <chrisccoulson> 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] <fta> from what i can see
[21:16] <chrisccoulson> but we will be going 1 step further now
[21:18] <chrisccoulson> fta - hmmm, that's a pain. do you run the test-suite in chromium? (i think i've asked you this already)
[21:18] <chrisccoulson> i'd like the test-suite in firefox to reduce some of the human effort required to test :)
[21:19] <fta> 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] <chrisccoulson> fta - which sorts of restrictions? just network access or other restrictions?
[21:20] <fta> not to mention that it tooks hours to build, and even more hours to run
[21:20] <fta> yep, no network, no display, no input
[21:20] <fta> nowadays, it's also no GPU
[21:20] <chrisccoulson> fta - did you try xvfb for the display?
[21:21] <chrisccoulson> the network access is a pain
[21:21] <chrisccoulson> and do automated tests require input? i don't have an issue with that particularly
[21:21] <fta> sure, i had a long pipe with xvfb, timeout, gdb
[21:23] <fta> chrisccoulson, http://paste.ubuntu.com/584498/
[21:27] <micahg> fta: the biggest delay on chromium ATM is the build time :)
[21:31] <fta> micahg, why do we even have to wait for arm? it's different in all matters, why not split the uploads
[21:34] <micahg> 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] <fta> no, not 2 src packages, but upload once the 32/64 builds are tested
[21:35] <fta> that's what most of the users need
[21:36] <micahg> fta: I don't think we can split the publishing like that, jdstrand ^^
[21:37] <fta> micahg, when we find something wrong with arm, we postpone the fix until the next upgrade anyway
[21:38] <micahg> fta: that depends on how badly the update is needed as well
[21:38] <fta> hot security fixes for the masses prevail over arm fixes
[21:38] <fta> well, until now at least
[21:39] <jdstrand> LP does not allow pocket copying of a build after the fact
[21:40] <jdstrand> eg, we publish i386 and amd64 then publish when arm is not done
[21:40] <jdstrand> arm is left out in the cold and needs a new source upload
[21:40] <jdstrand> we have skipped arm in the past for chromium with important fixes, fwiw
[21:41] <fta> tomorrow's update will also have a long list of hot fixes
[21:48] <fta> ..along with arm fixes from the previous upload :P
[21:49] <micahg> 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] <micahg> s/don't like/try to avoid/ :)
[21:50] <fta> not my call, i'm waiting for the upstream tag
[21:50] <micahg> fta: I understand, not trying to pressure you :)
[21:50] <fta> i have an idea of what it will be but i won't be sure until it's out
[22:25] <fta> micahg, libvpx 0.9.6 in natty is a security update, why isn't it in maverick and lucid?
[22:25] <micahg> fta: we generally patch stable releases vs full updates
[22:26] <fta> makes stuff hard to follow..
[22:26] <micahg> fta: there's more than the one that was backported to 0.9.5?
[22:26] <fta> not sure
[22:26] <micahg> I don't see any open CVEs
[22:27] <fta> it seems it fixed at least cve-2010-4489
[22:27] <ubot2> 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] <micahg> fta: right, that was backported to 0.9.5-2
[22:28] <micahg> and that was pushed to stable releases when chromium upped the build-dep
[22:28] <micahg> s/build-dep/dep
[23:42] <LLStarks> gfd firefox. it won't let me click certain  links.
[23:42] <LLStarks> I WANT MY FIVE DAY FORECAST!
[23:46] <micahg> LLStarks: I'm using forecastfox w/out issue in firefox 4
[23:46] <LLStarks> yeah, that's not it
[23:46] <LLStarks> i can't click on page links after the page loads
[23:46] <LLStarks> just the tabs and interface
[23:47] <LLStarks> i think shifting window focus unlocks it or something
[23:47] <LLStarks> yup.
[23:48] <LLStarks> okay, this sucks
[23:49] <LLStarks> can't click or highlight anything
[23:49] <LLStarks> no right-click