[07:50] <kmq> so I am firing up  11.04 this morning to be greeted by "your browser has been updated. plz restart" and I did. Now I have  Firefox5 with many of my extensions (notably firebug) not working
[07:50] <kmq> is this something I could have avoided by changing some sort of update setting, or does this warrant a bugreport ?
[07:53] <micahg> kmq: well, extension compatibility was at about 83% upstream
[07:53] <micahg> kmq: Firebug released an update to work with Firefox 5, do you have a system copy installed?
[07:54] <kmq> no, I installed via addons.mozilla.org
[07:54] <micahg> kmq: hmm, you should have received an update for it then
[07:55] <micahg> 1.7.3 works with Firefox 5
[07:56] <kmq> I have 1.7.3 in the addons list and it's disabled - searching for updates gives me nothing
[07:56] <kmq> I am installing 1.8 manually
[07:57] <micahg> kmq: maybe ask in #firebug on  irc.mozilla.org
[07:58] <kmq> well, 1.8 works
[07:59] <kmq> I am just surprised, I usually disable auto-updating. checking in 'update-manager' I see the 'Automatic update' radiobuttons all looking like this (-)
[07:59] <kmq> like all of them are 'half' selected
[07:59] <kmq> so I m guessing autoupdating is the default until I make a selection.
[08:00] <kmq> well, sorry for the noise and thank you for the help
[08:00]  * micahg wonders why 1.8 works and 1.7.3 doesn't
[08:00]  * micahg will dig further in the morning
[08:01] <kmq> also: http://getfirebug.com/swarms/Firefox-5.0/ :-)
[08:01] <kmq> you get there by clicking 'get your swarm'  on the getfirebug page
[08:03] <micahg> thanks
[13:28] <chrisccoulson> i can't believe we have someone actually asking to stay on an old firefox version - bug 800637
[13:28] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 800637 in firefox "Firefox 5 shouldn't be a security upgrade to Firefox 4" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/800637
[14:05] <fta2> chrisccoulson, i know a lot of people happy with what they have. Once they consider it stable enough for their needs, they don't want to touch it
[16:07] <kmq> chrisccoulson: re that bug. I got bitten by that this morning and I can kinda sympathize with 'someone' - noone likes broken tools
[16:08] <kmq> in the comments you were asking for the firebug version: I had 1.7.3
[16:23] <chrisccoulson> well, 1.7.3 is already compatible with 5.0
[16:41] <fta> https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa/+build/2583323  :(
[16:58] <chrisccoulson> fta - lucky you! i uploaded some builds yesterday morning which just finished 1 hour ago
[16:59] <chrisccoulson> i'm getting seriously annoyed now :/
[16:59] <chrisccoulson> i've given up trying to do daily builds entirely for now
[16:59] <chrisccoulson> i've no idea when the missing builders are going to come back
[17:02] <chrisccoulson> i've asked a couple of times in #launchpad now and didn't get a single response
[17:09] <fta> same here, i stopped asking. they obviously don't care about their users
[17:11] <bhearsum> anyone know how to work around this error: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/1255345 ? i get it at the start of the second pass of a PGO build
[17:12] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, that's on our toolchain?
[17:12] <bhearsum> yeah, compiled on my x86_64 11.04 machine
[17:13] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, i'm not too sure about that. it might be worth reporting a gcc bug, but i don't know what information you'd need to provide
[17:13] <bhearsum> alright, will do! i was hoping it was a common problem :S
[17:13] <chrisccoulson> i haven't tried doing a PGO build recently ;)
[17:13] <chrisccoulson> i guess i might hit the same issue
[17:13] <chrisccoulson> i suppose i could give it a try in a bit
[17:14] <chrisccoulson> oh, there's a new unity version now. probably not the best time for me to upgrade
[17:17] <bhearsum> hah
[17:19] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, are you familiar with the process for bumping addon compatibility on addons.mozilla.org? ie, is the version number bumped? and if not, how does firefox detect that there is a new addon version to upgrade to?
[17:19] <chrisccoulson> or am i misunderstanding how it works?
[17:19] <bhearsum> chrisccoulson: kindof, but i'm on a call, so i'll get back to you
[17:20] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, sure, no problem
[17:26] <chrisccoulson> hmmm, i think it's time for me to switch my work mail from evo to thunderbird now
[17:26] <chrisccoulson> it makes no sense for me to constantly have 2 e-mail clients open
[17:37] <chrisccoulson> fta - https://launchpad.net/~chrisccoulson/+archive/ppa/+build/2584715
[17:37] <chrisccoulson> although, "Start in 20 hours" is a lie
[17:38] <chrisccoulson> language packs are scored at zero, and don't start until there is literally nothing else left in the queue
[17:38] <chrisccoulson> and that hasn't happened once in the last week yet
[17:41] <fta> chrisccoulson, in my case, it was "Start in 10 hours" but "created 14 hours ago"
[17:42] <chrisccoulson> fta - oh, i didn't see that bit ;)
[17:42] <chrisccoulson> in any case, that will run long before mine do
[17:43] <fta> no, it won't, because the next one will have been uploaded and this one will be superseded
[17:43] <fta> so i'll get no valid build in days
[17:44] <fta> blocking the upgrade of the all the x64 bit users because of the arch-all debs
[17:44] <bhearsum> chrisccoulson: i'm actually not sure if the version number is bumped or not, i would _guess_ that it isn't, and that there's some mechanism used in combination with that to determine newness, maybe a distversion or something -- i'm certain #amo on irc.m.o could answer that with certainty, though
[17:44] <fta> so it's a total mess
[17:45] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, the only reason i asked is because we got a couple of users who ended up with an incompatible version of firebug installed after the upgrade (1.7.3, which is compatible with 5.0 according to a.m.o)
[17:45] <chrisccoulson> and i wasn't sure how this is meant to work :)
[17:47] <bhearsum> hmm, i heard other reports of issues with firebug
[17:47] <bhearsum> i'd be surprised if Firebug got autobumped, to be honest
[17:48] <chrisccoulson> yeah, me too
[18:37] <chrisccoulson> m_conley, http://uds.ubuntu.com/
[18:37] <chrisccoulson> it has a nice pool!
[18:37] <m_conley> Hey, awesome! :)
[18:44] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, PGO isn't enabled by default on current mozilla-central builds is it?
[18:50] <chrisccoulson> hah, my daughter has figured out that by touching the base of my lamp, she can adjust it's brightness
[18:50] <chrisccoulson> i now have a disco going on this room
[18:55] <bhearsum> chrisccoulson: it is for linux and windows AFAIK
[18:55] <bhearsum> err, wait
[18:55] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, i thought it got disabled again on linux?
[18:55] <chrisccoulson> unless it was re-enabled again
[18:55] <bhearsum> "by default" means "if i don't specify it in mozconfig" or are talking about our CI builds?
[18:55] <chrisccoulson> i don't know how to find out ;)
[18:55] <bhearsum> heh
[18:55] <bhearsum> lemme check
[18:56] <bhearsum> i know my local aurora build that keeps crashing has PGO on :P
[18:56] <chrisccoulson> heh
[18:57] <bhearsum> i'm seeing make -f /builds/slave/cen-lnx/build/client.mk profiledbuild in the logs, which means it's on
[18:57] <bhearsum> at least, for our CI builds
[18:57] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, ah, ok. thanks. i guess i should think about switching it on as well then
[18:59] <bhearsum> yeah, that'd be great. though, i haven't heard that PGO has made a massive difference on linux
[19:01] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, does it make the binaries smaller by any chance?
[19:01] <chrisccoulson> that would help to fit thunderbird on our CD ;)
[19:02] <bhearsum> hah
[19:02] <bhearsum> i don't know that it makes a difference either way
[19:05] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, oh - http://twitter.com/#!/shaver/status/83595913628631040
[19:07] <bhearsum> ah!
[19:07] <bhearsum> i knew i saw something about that :)
[19:08] <chrisccoulson> heh :)
[19:14] <chrisccoulson> hmmm, i wonder if pitti will score all my language pack builds up so i can actually copy firefox 5 to the stable PPA sometime this year :/
[19:46] <micahg> chrisccoulson: fta: the builders should've been back already, there was an unfortunate glitch which caused them not to return, please don't think they don't care about their users
[19:56] <fta> micahg, sorry but this is a recurrent issue. builders always disappear without any kind of proactive or even reactive notification, and never any ETA for their expected return.
[19:57] <micahg> fta: that much maybe we can do something about, I'll ask :)
[19:57] <fta> micahg, and i've personally filed enough bugs about lp that have been touched passed their triaged state, showing me they don't care
[19:57] <fta> have +never
[19:58] <fta> i'm sick of writing workaround scripts
[19:58] <micahg> they're working through the backlog, it's ~50 people and ~6k bugs
[19:58] <micahg> launchpad has come a long way in the last year
[19:58] <micahg> and the new split between features and maintenance will help as well
[20:05] <fta> rotating people every few weeks mostly killed the little activity there was on my bugs
[20:06] <fta> skills are lost faster than bugs are fixed
[20:45] <chrisccoulson> nice font - https://mozillademos.org/demos/dashboard/demo.html !
[20:54] <fta> chrisccoulson, hm, http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/insecure-scripts.png
[21:11] <chrisccoulson> fta - sorry, my laptop died
[21:12] <chrisccoulson> i guess you see that because the site loads http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.4/jquery.min.js
[21:12] <chrisccoulson> i haven't tried it in chromium though
[21:13] <debfx> chrisccoulson: have you seen my message about language packs pulling in firefox?
[21:14] <chrisccoulson> debfx, yeah, sorry, i haven't had a chance to reply yet
[21:15] <chrisccoulson> that's not going to change in natty now though, and i think that they *should* depend on firefox too (the thunderbird-locale-xx packages also depend on thunderbird)
[21:15] <chrisccoulson> the issue here is that we have this transitional period where the main language packs need to recommend the firefox language packs
[21:15] <chrisccoulson> (which will go away after the next LTS, when we just rely on language-selector to pull in the right firefox translations)
[21:16] <debfx> why do the firefox locale packages have to depend on firefox?
[21:16] <chrisccoulson> i guess for oneiric i could drop the depends, and add some Breaks in there so that we still have a way of preventing people from updating firefox without updating their language packs
[21:17] <chrisccoulson> why wouldn't they depend on firefox though? why would you install them without installing firefox?
[21:17] <chrisccoulson> and like i said, the thunderbird-locale packages have depended on thunderbird since the beginning of time
[21:19] <debfx> I just don't see much practical gain in having the dependency so if it causes problems I'd just drop it
[21:23] <chrisccoulson> well, the dependency in the current nightly builds is strict so that we avoid the constant issues where users upgrade firefox without upgrading language packs
[21:24] <chrisccoulson> then their installs totally breaks because they have the addon compatibility reporter installed, which enables the old language packs (which should have failed the compatibility check)
[21:24] <chrisccoulson> so, it's definitely there for a reason
[21:24] <chrisccoulson> if we can do it another way, then i don't mind that, but i'm not going to spend any time changing things like that
[21:30] <debfx> you could keep the dependency for nightly builds only
[21:31] <debfx> or like you said use breaks instead of a dependency
[21:36] <chrisccoulson> debfx, well, the dependency in the nightly builds will flow down in to the distro (which is where we have the problem)
[21:38] <chrisccoulson> i should probably report a bug upstream about disabling the compat check for language packs. i think that setting should just be ignored tbh
[21:38] <chrisccoulson> i can't think of a situation where you would want to disable the compat check for translations, as it's always going to end in tears
[21:40] <chrisccoulson> then we wouldn't need the strict relationship between firefox + translation packs at the packaging level
[22:03] <chrisccoulson> right, finally uploading the latest tbird beta :)
[22:06] <fta> ..and you'll get your build for christmas ;)
[22:07] <fta> sorry, couldn't resist
[22:07] <chrisccoulson> fta - oh, this is to the main archive ;)
[22:08] <chrisccoulson> so, i should get them quickly :)
[22:08] <fta> lucky you
[22:08] <chrisccoulson> (although, i am also going to upload to the thunderbird-next PPA, which might not get them until christmas)
[23:13] <micahg> chrisccoulson: yeah, the locale packages shouldn't depend on firefox, but a Breaks is more appropriate, otherwise, we force kubuntu users to install firefox
[23:13] <chrisccoulson> that seems like a desirable side-effect ;)
[23:14] <micahg> and this is the type of stuff I was hoping to avoid with my call for testing...
[23:16] <chrisccoulson> i'll change that in the nightlies in a bit then
[23:24]  * micahg looks up exactly which syntax is proper
[23:28] <debfx> micahg: yeah someone should have caught that while the language packs were in natty-proposed
[23:28] <micahg> chrisccoulson: yeah, breaks w/version guards sounds good
[23:28] <debfx> though I wonder why they don't have a tracking bug
[23:28] <micahg> debfx: why who
[23:28] <debfx> the language pack uploads
[23:29] <debfx> to track regressions
[23:29] <micahg> they were normal, it was Firefox that was unusual in this case and causing issues
[23:29] <chrisccoulson> they don't usually, do they?
[23:29] <chrisccoulson> normally, a call for testing goes out for translators
[23:29] <micahg> Firefox did have a tracking bug
[23:29] <chrisccoulson> and the language packs have sat in proposed for pretty much a fortnight
[23:30] <micahg> debfx: does kpackagekit install recommends by default?
[23:30] <micahg> on upgrade that is
[23:30] <chrisccoulson> the issue really is that we attract all the wrong people to -proposed ;)
[23:31] <chrisccoulson> (ie, people enable it without understanding what it's for. these people don't read mailing lists and don't realize they've become guinea pigs)
[23:31] <micahg> ah, is bug 800857 what you're all referring to?
[23:31] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 800857 in language-pack-en-base "language-pack-en-base 1:11.04+20110607 adds firefox as dependency" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/800857
[23:31] <debfx> micahg: I'd hope so but I can't say for sure
[23:32] <micahg> chrisccoulson: is there another bug you know of tracking this issue?
[23:32] <debfx> micahg: I didn't know there was a bug report about it
[23:33] <chrisccoulson> micahg - no, and i generally don't track language pack bugs ;)
[23:33] <micahg> k, thanks, will hijack it then
[23:34] <micahg> chrisccoulson: it's hitting servers :(
[23:38] <chrisccoulson> hmm, i wish i hadn't started on the beer now
[23:41]  * micahg should prepare an update for natty
[23:42] <micahg> chrisccoulson: sorry :(
[23:42] <chrisccoulson> please don't make any changes without first fixing it in the firefox-trunk branch
[23:42] <chrisccoulson> i'm trying to avoid that, as i'm going to end up dropping changes if they don't go there first ;)
[23:43] <micahg> chrisccoulson: can I add it there once I get it uploaded?
[23:43] <micahg> it's going to take 19 hours to build
[23:44] <chrisccoulson> that's armel isn't it?
[23:44] <micahg> yep
[23:44] <chrisccoulson> turn off the test suite for this build, there's no point in running it again
[23:44] <chrisccoulson> that will get that down by a few hours
[23:45] <micahg> k, will do, still, can I upload this first and fix trunk later?
[23:45] <chrisccoulson> well, if you just remove the dependency entirely in the current version, i will add a breaks in trunk
[23:46] <chrisccoulson> we will want the breaks in future stable releases once we've figured out how it works though, so we avoid these constant issues where users upgrade without new language packs and trash their installs :)
[23:46] <chrisccoulson> but just removing the dependency is fine for now, as there's no strict relationship in the current version
[23:46] <micahg> k, well, I think we need the breaks here as well or they can have a 5 langpack with 4 installed
[23:46] <chrisccoulson> they can already have that, even with the dependency
[23:47] <chrisccoulson> it's not a new issue
[23:47] <micahg> ah, good point :)
[23:47] <chrisccoulson> the current nightly changes the loose dependency to a strict one
[23:47] <micahg> k, will get this uploaded then
[23:47] <chrisccoulson> and we want some sort of strict relationship in future stable versions
[23:47] <chrisccoulson> but we don't need it for this release
[23:57] <chrisccoulson> micahg, http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox-trunk.head/revision/890
[23:57] <chrisccoulson> i *think* that will do the job