[13:46] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, there?
[13:46] <bhearsum> yep
[13:46] <bhearsum> what's up?
[13:46] <chrisccoulson> hi bhearsum. do you have any idea roughly when build 5 of the beta will be pushed out to users?
[13:48] <bhearsum> hmmm, i haven't seen anything official. i'd bet on tomorrow or monday if i had to
[13:52] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, is there any issue with us making this build available for people to test before that happens? we're doing a restructuring of all our language packs alongside the firefox 5 update, and we could do with getting people to test the entire upgrade (ie, firefox + new language packs) quite soon (preferable starting before the weekend)
[13:53] <bhearsum> if we have to rebuild 5.0b5, do you have the ability to rebuild on your side, without bumping the Firefox version number?
[13:55] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, yeah. we have "b5" in the version numbering of the package anyway, as i provide these builds in a PPA and our packaging system mandates that version numbers always increase
[13:56] <bhearsum> so if we had to rebuild 5.0b5, you could push out the same rebuild as "5.0b5"? or would it have to be 5.0b6?
[13:56] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, oh, i get you now. yeah, we can do that too (we version our source package as 5.0~b5+build1, so we always leave the door open for being able to do a rebuild)
[13:56] <bhearsum> ahhhh
[13:56] <bhearsum> yeah, i don't see why that would be an issue then
[13:56] <chrisccoulson> cool, thanks
[14:02] <bhearsum> np, thanks for checking!
[15:01] <chrisccoulson> m_conley, do you know if there is another beta build of thunderbird scheduled any time soon?
[15:01] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: hang on - let me grab the last meeting minutes...
[15:01] <chrisccoulson> those are public aren't they? i guess i should actually read them sometimes ;)
[15:02] <m_conley> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/StatusMeetings/2011-06-07
[15:02] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: I though so - the final beta build is coming this week
[15:02] <chrisccoulson> cool, thanks
[15:06] <chrisccoulson> bdrung_, are you planning to update eclipse this cycle?
[15:06] <chrisccoulson> you have a work item on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-o-mozilla-rapid-release-maintenance/ :-)
[15:21] <bdrung_> chrisccoulson: yes, at least we will have 3.6.2
[15:22] <chrisccoulson> bdrung_, excellent, thanks!
[15:35] <chrisccoulson> dang, my firefox build died because my laptop ran out of disk space
[15:38] <chrisccoulson> oh my
[15:39] <chrisccoulson> emptying my trash folder has so far freed 20GB, and it's still going :/
[15:39]  * fta always bypasses the trash
[15:39] <chrisccoulson> heh
[15:40] <chrisccoulson> 30GB now, and it's still going
[15:40] <chrisccoulson> i hope there was nothing in there that i wanted ;)
[15:41] <bhearsum> chrisccoulson: so, turns out we're trying to ship 5.0b5 today :)
[15:41] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, oh, cool. so you might end up shipping before our builds are done then ;)
[16:37] <fta> grr, the oneiric toolchain is really broken
[16:53] <chrisccoulson> what's up with it?
[17:21] <chrisccoulson> m_conley, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/oneiric-changes/2011-June/002709.html ;)
[17:22] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: ha! :)
[17:22] <chrisccoulson> we decided to just kill it :)
[17:23] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: good idea. ;)
[17:29] <fta> chrisccoulson, i build ch with gcc 4.5 on both natty & oneiric. same sources. on oneiric, the <video> tags doesn't work, it does on natty
[17:29] <fta> chrisccoulson, if i copy the codecs .so from natty to oneiric, it works
[19:00] <fta> chrisccoulson, bug 795171
[19:00] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 795171 in chromium-browser "<video> tag broken in oneiric only" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/795171
[19:14] <chrisccoulson> fta - did you try compiling with the oneiric gcc and natty linker?
[19:14] <fta> i didn't
[19:14] <chrisccoulson> just to rule out one of them
[19:15] <fta> oneiric gcc is 4.6, but ch ftbfs with it, hence 4.5
[19:15] <fta> but i didn't change binutils, difficult to downgrade
[19:17] <chrisccoulson> do you have a natty chroot? you could try it the other way around if you do (ie, install the oneiric binutils in natty)
[19:20] <chrisccoulson> fta - do you know if the problem is specific to i386 too?
[19:20] <fta> no
[19:21] <fta> but if you care to test on x64 ;)
[19:21] <fta> it's easy
[19:23] <chrisccoulson> on youtube, i get a black window with "undefined" in white text
[19:23] <chrisccoulson> is that what you see too?
[19:23] <chrisccoulson> in any case, it's not working on amd64 either ;)
[19:24] <chrisccoulson> yeah, i get the same on every video
[19:25] <fta> yep
[20:00] <fta> ok, rebuilding on natty with binutils from oneiric..
[20:01] <fta> erhhh
[20:01] <fta> i don't have a desktop with natty to test
[20:02] <fta> chrisccoulson, ^^
[20:58] <chrisccoulson> fta - hi, sorry, i went for some food
[20:59] <chrisccoulson> i don't have a natty desktop to test on either, but the binary should run on oneiric shouldn't it?
[20:59] <chrisccoulson> i'm going to set up a VM for natty later on though
[20:59] <chrisccoulson> i need to do some other verification work
[21:00] <fta> chrisccoulson, https://launchpad.net/~fta/+archive/sandbox/+packages
[21:01] <chrisccoulson> thanks
[21:03] <fta> chrisccoulson, basically, +natty1 is pure natty, and +natty2 is natty+binutils from oneiric
[21:04] <chrisccoulson> fta - ok, thanks. i'll install that once i have a VM for natty set up later