[09:02] <ricotz> darkxst, hi :), seeing a thunderbird 24.2.0 release will probably mean that mozjs24 will also be called 24.2, which means another library-name-change :\
[09:06] <darkxst> ricotz, meh, seems the mozilla people have no idea what is going on then ;(
[09:10] <darkxst> ricotz, https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr24/rev/0fa56f18ff99
[09:13] <darkxst> ricotz, perhaps we should relax the versioning on the .pc file?
[09:15] <darkxst> although gjs still links directly against the lib
[09:15] <darkxst> meh, ignore that
[09:21] <ricotz> changing the name of the library- and pc-file without any reason is just a pita
[09:21] <ricotz> i guess there is no real understand for the shared library concept
[09:34] <darkxst> ricotz, right, I don't quite get it, it seems that the versioning was causing issues with extensions
[09:34] <darkxst> but the versioning is only applied to standalone build
[09:41] <darkxst> ricotz, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=927073
[09:42] <darkxst> but I still don't see how that breaks ABI
[09:42] <ricotz> an ABI break is no reason to change the name
[09:43] <ricotz> at least not for the standalone version
[09:43] <ricotz> but since they aren't maintaining a proper soname versioning they don't see another way
[09:46] <darkxst> yeh they refused to adopt proper soname versioning
[09:51] <ricotz> i am going to push an (untested) snapshot to my staging ppa
[09:53] <ricotz> (e.g. it might fail to build)
[09:58] <darkxst> ricotz, right, I wouldnt be entirely surprised it there are regression from those patches
[10:01] <darkxst> but it would be good to know either way, release isnt too far off, mainly blocked by the debug stuff currently
[10:02] <darkxst> ricotz, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8344053
[10:02] <darkxst> perhaps include that in snapshot?
[10:03] <ricotz> ah was that what you added to https://launchpad.net/~darkxst/+archive/mozjs-debug/+sourcepub/3665453/+listing-archive-extra ?
[10:04] <darkxst> ricotz, no, I had to had a terrible hack to gjs (#define DEBUG) to make debug builds work
[10:05] <ricotz> ok, this is not included in my build though too
[10:05] <darkxst> with the above patch ./configure --debug should just work
[10:05] <ricotz> ok
[10:06] <darkxst> --enable-debug
[10:06] <darkxst> even
[10:06] <ricotz> i dont want to add it though
[10:07] <ricotz> enabling debug even breaks abi?
[10:07] <darkxst> ok
[10:07] <darkxst> no it shouldnt, but did due that bug
[10:08] <darkxst> debug build should be abi compatible just a bit slower
[10:08] <ricotz> i mean the debug build and non-debug build are not abi compatible
[10:09] <ricotz> the patch suggests otherwise
[10:10] <ricotz> but i guess they are not all public headers
[10:12] <darkxst>  jsvals are structs in the debug build vs ints in the normal build
[10:13] <darkxst> but atleast according to upstream, they are abi compatible
[10:14] <ricotz> ah, this drops the minor versioning "libmozjs-24.so"
[10:15] <ricotz> mozjs-24.pc
[10:16] <darkxst> oh right, so if they ever actually really break the ABI we will be stuffed
[10:18] <ricotz> in this case we would just bump the soname
[10:20] <ricotz> the patch doesnt apply
[10:25] <darkxst> ricotz, probably against master then
[10:29] <darkxst>  I'm off for the night, been a long weekend, cya
[10:47] <ricotz> darkxst, bye
[19:04] <Brama> hello gnome fans
[19:04] <Brama> i'm having problems installing latest ubuntu gnome with my usb stick and it's too big for a cd
[19:05] <Brama> is there a way to install proper ubuntu gnome trough official ubuntu netinstall ?
[19:06] <Brama> is there anybody here ?
[21:13] <MaverickPT> hi