File size: 28,761 Bytes
4aa5fce |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 |
[00:00] <fta_> yep === fta_ is now known as fta [00:00] <mconnor> nspr_flags_by_pkg_config_hack [00:00] <mconnor> is there an upstream bug, or a better explanation of what that's trying to fix? [00:03] <fta> mconnor, it is needed because our tarball for firefox 3.0 is not full, it doesn't have nspr sources [00:03] <mconnor> you guys and your wacky tarball [00:06] <fta> mconnor, the goal is to have less bits to upload, it's 10M vs 40M for the full one [00:06] <mconnor> what all do you take out? [00:07] <mconnor> that seems like you're tossing a lot of code out of the tarball [00:07] <fta> hold on [00:07] <mconnor> I wish you could just point at the mozilla tarball + your patches... seems like it'd be saner than anything [00:08] <mconnor> oh, yeah, are you guys pulling the know your rights patch in 3.0.5? [00:11] <fta> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/mozilla-devscripts/mozilla-devscripts/annotate/head:/src/mozclient/patches/xulbrowser_target.patch [00:12] <fta> i guess, with 3.0.5, our know-your-rights patch will conflict so it will probably go away [00:12] <mconnor> oh, right, because you build the app package separate from the xulrunner package [00:12] <mconnor> it'll definitely conflict :) [00:14] <mconnor> hmm [00:15] <mconnor> the don't depend on NSPR sources, couldn't you copy that file from the nspr location when building the source tarball? [00:16] <mconnor> I'm mildly worried about us making changes to the original that you don't pick up [00:17] <fta> everything is possible [00:17] <mconnor> yeah [00:17] <mconnor> I know [00:18] <mconnor> I'm just treating this like I treat code reviews [00:18] <mconnor> if there's a potential for stuff to go wrong, it will almost certainly go wrong [00:18] <fta> the point here is that when system nspr is requested, configure should not depend on the in-source version of nspr-config, even if it's in the tree, it may have diverged from the real system libs/headers [00:34] <mconnor> fta: the patch means that configure depends on a specific version of make-system-wrappers.pl from the time of patch creation [00:34] <mconnor> I'm not sure how that's better [00:44] <mconnor> mmm [00:56] <mconnor> fta: what are the jemalloc patches doing? [00:58] <fta> are they still applied ? [01:00] <mconnor> oh, I missed that they're commented out of the series patch [01:00] <mconnor> ok! [01:00] <mconnor> s/series patch/series file/ [01:01] <fta> i should clean that up [01:01] <mconnor> bz436133_att322801.patch should be replaced with the patch that landed on 3.1 :P [01:58] <mconnor> man, this default prefs patch is weird [05:52] <mconnor> uh. [05:55] <mconnor> fta / asac : I am confused by how/if part of one of these patches works... [05:57] <mconnor> oh, nm [05:57] <mconnor> man I hate this code [09:57] <asac> mconnor: ok i am back from leave. [09:59] <asac> mconnor: have to catch up on mail and stuff and then will focus on getting the patches upstreamed to bugs === fta_ is now known as fta [10:51] <asac> fta: wanna take a look at one or two extensions from gnomefreak ;) [10:51] <asac> i think he asked for a merge of firegpg [10:51] <asac> and has two more new packages in pipeline [14:38] <asac> @time [14:38] <ubottu> Current time in Etc/UTC: November 24 2008, 14:38:22 - Next meeting: Server Team in 1 day [14:39] <asac> @time central [14:39] <ubottu> Current time in Canada/Central: November 24 2008, 08:39:01 - Next meeting: Server Team in 1 day [14:39] <asac> @time US/central [14:39] <ubottu> Current time in US/Central: November 24 2008, 08:39:08 - Next meeting: Server Team in 1 day [14:59] <asac> @time [14:59] <ubottu> Current time in Etc/UTC: November 24 2008, 14:59:21 - Next meeting: Server Team in 1 day [16:20] <mconnor> asac: http://people.mozilla.com/~mconnor/trademark-review/Ubuntu/Round%201/ [16:21] <mconnor> asac: the "3.0 only" are stuff we have or should upstream [16:21] <mconnor> the "Needs Discssion" we should talk about :) [16:42] <[reed]> mconnor: #16 is wrong on your list [16:42] <[reed]> the prefs are in Firefox's prefs upstream [16:43] <[reed]> not in Toolkit's [16:43] <[reed]> that's the problem [16:45] <fta2> damn, i can't send emails using my corporate address using thunderbird (or evolution), while i can with mutt. [16:46] <fta2> smtp+auth with tb and evo, NOK. evo with sendmail, NOK. mutt with sendmail, OK. [16:53] <mconnor> [reed]: mmm, I hate how that's split [16:53] <mconnor> we need that toolkit prefs file [16:54] <[reed]> you just hate XULRunner [16:54] <[reed]> ;) [16:55] <mconnor> I hate that its something everyone's hacking around stuff [16:55] <[reed]> instead of filing upstream? [16:55] <[reed]> I agree with you there [16:55] <mconnor> it made me sad that only like 1/3 of things were filed [16:55] <mconnor> and that you'd been the one to file them :_/ [16:56] <mconnor> I mean, this is like 18 months of not bothering... [16:57] <mconnor> as for 16, well [16:57] <mconnor> does it need its own prefs file? [16:57] <mconnor> because, well [16:57] <[reed]> yeah [16:57] <[reed]> well [16:57] <[reed]> we should split out anything in toolkit to a separate prefs file [16:57] <[reed]> right now, all our apps have to duplicate the same prefs [16:58] <mconnor> I said that, what, four minutes ago? [16:58] <mconnor> why are you repeating my bitching? :P [16:58] <[reed]> I didn't see where you said something like "all our apps have to duplicate the same prefs" [17:07] <mconnor> [reed]: I said we need to do the toolkit prefs file [17:07] <mconnor> and, no, we can just stick stuff in all.js [17:07] <mconnor> that's the current standard [17:07] <[reed]> we do have non-toolkit apps [17:08] <[reed]> they might not appreciate that [17:09] <mconnor> why? [17:09] <mconnor> you think a few dozen prefs in all.js will impact those embeddors? [17:10] <[reed]> I dunno [17:10] <[reed]> maybe? [17:10] <mconnor> it'd be cleaner, but meh [17:10] <[reed]> I'll concede I'm making this up as I go. [17:10] <mconnor> don't do that [17:10] <mconnor> there's been enough of that to date :P [17:11] <[reed]> I blame you. [17:11] <[reed]> anyway [17:11] <[reed]> :) [17:11] <[reed]> so, are you coming to UDS? :P [17:11] <mconnor> don't think so [17:12] <[reed]> sad [17:12] <mconnor> eh [17:12] <mconnor> where's the next one? [17:12] <[reed]> no idea... will be announced on Friday of this one [17:12] <mconnor> ah [17:12] <mconnor> I just don't want to travel any more this year [17:13] <mconnor> my 40k miles of flying was my limit [17:13] <fta2> you're not local ? [17:13] <[reed]> hey, I've done 25k this year, not including this upcoming trip [17:13] <[reed]> :) [17:14] <[reed]> Thanks Mozilla and Canonical for footing my travel bills! :) [17:14] <[reed]> fta2: he's Toronto-based [17:14] <fta2> oh [17:14] <[reed]> all the Mikes save one are Toronto-based [17:15] <[reed]> I don't think we have any Mikes in MV now [17:15] <mconnor> mmm [17:15] <mconnor> Mikael Rogers? [17:15] <[reed]> oh, true [17:15] <[reed]> but he doesn't go by Mike, afaik [17:15] <[reed]> could be wrong [17:15] * fta2 is throwing thunderbird 3 and evolution through the window [17:16] <mconnor> 3? [17:16] <mconnor> bold [17:16] <fta2> 3 & 2, all the same [17:16] <[reed]> [10:45:33AM] <fta2> damn, i can't send emails using my corporate address using thunderbird (or evolution), while i can with mutt. [17:16] <[reed]> [10:46:54AM] <fta2> smtp+auth with tb and evo, NOK. evo with sendmail, NOK. mutt with sendmail, OK. [17:16] <fta2> out [17:16] <[reed]> France Telecom doesn't like open source. [17:16] <[reed]> ;) [17:16] <mconnor> [reed]: why'd you repaste that? [17:17] <mconnor> I was just noting that trusting your mail to Tb3 is bold :) [17:17] <[reed]> ah [17:17] <[reed]> ok [17:17] <fta2> i trust ff3.1 for the web [17:17] <mconnor> yeah, but that's different [17:18] <mconnor> if I nuke my mail, I can't do my job really [17:20] <fta2> all the same to me. and i have logs, backups and even copies of my corporate emails. [17:21] <fta2> i'm going back to mutt for now [17:21] <fta2> now i remember why i've been using it exclusively since 1996 [17:22] <mconnor> hehe [17:22] <[reed]> I personally use Sylpheed, as I'm dependent on a GUI-based mail client for some reason... though, Sylpheed is about the only thing that can handle my mail [17:22] <[reed]> Thunderbird fails miserably [17:23] <[reed]> considering the amount of e-mail I get faily [17:23] <[reed]> daily [17:27] <mconnor> isn't your quantity of mail faily regardless of your mail client? ;) [17:28] <fta2> 99.5% of my incoming emails are spam. thanks to greylist/spamd/spamassassin/clamav, i'm just getting ~5% of spam at the end, 5% of 200~300 emails a day, 2/3 of mailing lists & bug tickets. procmail sorts those out, mutt can easily manage the rest. [17:30] <fta2> asac, the new cairo is in. the next upload of xul will fail to build miserably [17:31] <fta2> assuming 3.0 has the same problem as 3.1 === stevel_ is now known as stevel [18:59] <huayra> hi [18:59] <huayra> asac [18:59] <huayra> as I was saying [18:59] <asac> hi huayra [18:59] <huayra> I am interested in getting the swahili translation for ff3 going [18:59] <huayra> I got resources and time for this [18:59] <huayra> resources as in company backing [19:00] <huayra> and I have a friend who is going to work with me on this [19:00] <asac> oh cool [19:00] <huayra> my question is if it is better to use rosetta or to go the l10n patrh? [19:00] <asac> is there an official team for that language somewhere? [19:00] <huayra> there is one, but they have not done anything since 1.0.3 [19:00] <huayra> at least nothing is been released [19:00] <huayra> a mozilla team [19:01] <asac> huayra: have you tried to talk to them? [19:01] <huayra> I have contact with the lead, yes, but it seems to be lots of fractions in that team and nothing constructive coming out [19:01] <huayra> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300754 [19:01] <ubottu> Mozilla bug 300754 in Registration & Management "[sw-TZ] Kiswahili Firefox localization (Kilinux Team)" [Normal,Assigned] [19:02] <asac> huayra: if the team is somewhat active, it doesnt make much sense to use rosetta. unless the current team would be willing to do that [19:02] <asac> huayra: how do they maintain their translations? [19:02] <mconnor> huayra: you should email l10n@mozilla.com and sethb@mozilla.com for help getting things unbusted, IMO [19:02] <huayra> basically no release has been done since 1.0.3 [19:02] <asac> do they have an (outdated) repository or something? [19:02] <huayra> that's ages ago [19:03] <huayra> yeah, I have a link, let me find it [19:03] <asac> huayra: do what mconnor said. once you know that you can take over the lead you can choose the tool you use to edit the stuff [19:03] <mconnor> there's a number of good translation tools for Mozilla [19:03] <asac> i think a requirement is to have a complete translation [19:04] <mconnor> yes, that is a requirement for being shipped as official, for obvious reasons [19:04] <huayra> what should we use if we want the ubuntu community to contribute but also make upstream happy? [19:04] <asac> huayra: rosetta as a tool would helpful if you want to tap the ubuntu translator community [19:04] <asac> which sounds reasonable if the language is not a "major" one (excuse this word ;)) [19:05] <mconnor> mmm [19:05] <mconnor> I don't know why you'd translate for Ubuntu only [19:05] <asac> mconnor: well [19:05] <huayra> but, if we want to make anyone happy and probably find a "framework" for such *minor* languages [19:05] <huayra> ? [19:05] <asac> mconnor: we have lots of translators [19:05] <asac> mconnor: they all use rosetta. so if you put things in there it gets automatically done ... e.g. you dont need to build your own community [19:06] <mconnor> asac: that's not really an answer to "why translate only for Ubuntu" [19:06] <huayra> I want to translate for everyone, not only Ubuntu, but rosetta (lp translations) has its adventages [19:06] <huayra> so how can we get momentum and make everyone happy? [19:06] <mconnor> huayra: Axel and Seth can help here [19:06] <asac> mconnor: most likely a matter of interest [19:06] <huayra> I want a translated ff3 in all platforms and tap the ubuntu community for its momentum too in the effort [19:07] <asac> mconnor: people just have to focus on something [19:07] <asac> like you focus on firefox [19:07] <mconnor> they're trying in the bug to resolve things, give them a shout, see what they can do [19:07] <huayra> they have been discussing since 2005. I want some real work done [19:07] <huayra> not just talking [19:07] * mconnor sighs [19:08] <huayra> I am to use resources so I want results [19:08] <mconnor> yes, because that localization team is being weird [19:08] <mconnor> I'm not asking you to talk to to the existing team [19:08] <huayra> if that means a one man show in rosetta so be it [19:08] <asac> mconnor: the idea is to do translations in rosetta and find a way to get that shoved over to "official" tree [19:08] <huayra> but how can we fix things? [19:08] <mconnor> I'm asking you to ask Seth and Axel for help [19:08] <huayra> we have contact with the team [19:08] <mconnor> because that's their job [19:08] <asac> huayra: yeah. talk to them ... about requirements and stuff [19:08] <huayra> I am just asking you guys that know the real deal to find a solution [19:09] <huayra> ok [19:09] <mconnor> huayra: reading the bug, they've laid everything out [19:09] <huayra> I will then talk to Seth and Axel [19:09] <mconnor> the existing "team" doesn't seem to be doing anything [19:09] <asac> huayra: from rosetta point of view it would be interesting to get input on the exact formatting they require the translations to be done [19:09] <huayra> yeah, I noticed that [19:09] <huayra> they just own the team, but no progress is been done [19:09] <mconnor> so talk to them about restarting with a new team [19:09] <mconnor> they == who? [19:10] <mconnor> Seth and Axel are the l10n drivers for Mozilla, they coordinate l10n across all locales [19:10] <huayra> I was thinking of the team, not of S & A ;) [19:10] <huayra> so in conclusion [19:10] <asac> mconnor: they == Seth + Axel (and mozilla in general) [19:11] <asac> (if you asked for my they ;)) [19:11] <huayra> is it possible to use rosetta and still get a usable translation for the upstream mozilla guys, or not? [19:11] <asac> huayra: it is possible. if there are things that need to be fixed, we will certainly do that [19:11] <huayra> isn't rosetta just handling the PO files anyway? [19:11] <asac> its quite important for us to make things suitable for that [19:12] <asac> huayra: firefox doesnt have po files [19:12] <mconnor> heh [19:12] <huayra> ok [19:12] <huayra> I reckon I will just talk to Axel and Seth and find out [19:12] <mconnor> ok [19:13] <huayra> thank you very much guys [19:13] <asac> huayra: its using xpi ... which is why its a bit more difficult. but rosetta has (beta) support for that. its just that we need more real-life [19:13] <asac> to streamline stuff ;) [19:13] <huayra> so this could be a nice opportunity? [19:13] <asac> huayra: welcome [19:13] <asac> huayra: for sure. [19:13] <huayra> I mean to test the xpi support? [19:14] <asac> huayra: right. [19:14] <mconnor> er [19:14] <huayra> ok, interesting [19:14] <mconnor> it uses XPI for langpacks, yeah [19:14] <mconnor> but that's the package format, not the output format [19:15] <asac> mconnor: yeah. thats understood. its used as a synonym here. [19:15] <huayra> yeah, xpi like in add-ons files [19:15] <mconnor> as long as it outputs something that matches the in-tree format so we can get it upstream, great [19:15] <huayra> so, what do we do? [19:15] <mconnor> huayra: that's your call [19:15] <mconnor> huayra: talk to the experts though :) [19:16] <huayra> shall I try to get thing s working with the team and see if we vcan use rosetta, or just import the whole thing from mozilla when the translation in their terms is done? [19:16] <asac> huayra: first sort out the admin stuff. then review the tools available on the market and decide [19:16] <huayra> what are thos e tools? [19:16] <mconnor> huayra: Axel and Seth can give better recommendations [19:17] <huayra> can you maybe point me to the tools that are used by other localization teams please [19:17] <huayra> ok [19:17] <huayra> where do I find those guys? [19:17] <huayra> #mozilla ? [19:18] <mconnor> I'd email them [19:18] <mconnor> and they're not likely on freenode [19:18] <mconnor> sethb@mozilla.com and l10n@mozilla.com [19:18] <mconnor> Axel's in Germany, Seth's in California [19:19] <huayra> thnks so much :) [19:19] <asac> omg ... my mailqueue was down again :( [19:19] <asac> thats scary when you dont know which mails didnt go out for how long :( [19:32] <huayra> do you guys know how many string FF3 has? [19:33] <asac> huayra: i can look ;) [19:33] <mconnor> asac: focus on looking at the big set of patches I have issues with, please :) [19:33] <mconnor> huayra: around 2k, at last check [19:34] <asac> 1893 messages + 3821 messages [19:34] <mconnor> 5k? [19:34] <mconnor> 6k? [19:34] <asac> yeah [19:34] <mconnor> huh [19:34] <mconnor> maybe [19:34] <mconnor> I don't remember it being that high [19:35] <mconnor> but I don't translate :) [19:35] <mconnor> asac: you saw my link? [19:35] <asac> mconnor: yes. [19:36] <asac> mconnor: i will start to push bugs tomorrow. 2h a day ... should be just a few days. [19:36] <asac> mconnor: needs discussion should then be done in bugs [19:37] <asac> mconnor: good enough? [19:37] <asac> mconnor: [reed] already pointed out that 16 is required to move some classifier settings to toolkit [19:40] <mconnor> asac: there's better ways to do that than adding another file to parse, fwiw [19:41] <huayra> so 3800 strings? [19:41] <huayra> or just 2k? [19:41] <huayra> kind of fell off the conversation... ;) [19:42] <asac> huayra: 3800 (toolkit) + 1600 (browser) [19:42] <asac> er 1800 [19:43] <huayra> asac excuse my ignorance. I want FF3 translated and all translators speak English. Do I need to strictly translate just 1600 or do I need the toolkit translated as well? [19:44] <asac> huayra: toolkit is required [19:44] <huayra> so 5400 strings is the translation requirement? [19:44] <asac> yes about that amount [19:44] <huayra> thx [19:44] <huayra> :) [19:44] <asac> 5600 [19:46] <armin76> lol [19:47] <mconnor> asac: filing upstream bugs is the good first step, yeah [19:47] <mconnor> asac: some of this stuff is, well, unnecessary [19:49] <mconnor> asac: my biggest question was that in a couple of the patches you changed stuff inside of OSX #ifdefs, what was up there? [19:50] <asac> mconnor: most likely i tried to make the patch complete ... if that completely doesnt make sense for OSX i was just wrong ;) [19:51] <mconnor> asac: also, having a patch start with "supposedly this does X" is not ever something I want to see [19:51] <mconnor> ever [19:51] <mconnor> either it works or it doesn't :P [19:51] <asac> mconnor: which patch is that? [19:51] <asac> the debian compatibility thing? [19:52] <mconnor> yeah [19:54] <asac> mconnor: i wanted to write "i hate debian for this" there ;) ... and ended up with a more political wording. [19:54] <asac> mconnor: the patch obviously works ... otherwise it wouldnt be in there ;) [19:54] <mconnor> why take it then? [19:54] <asac> mconnor: background: we packaged xulrunner 1.9 and firefox 3.0 more than 6 month before debian did it. [19:55] <asac> mconnor: then they started to make life miserable by doing some slightly different decisions [19:55] <mconnor> asac: so, fun fact [19:56] <asac> mconnor: problem is that when debian says we install stuff at place X ... then all the packages that we automatically sync would either not work [19:56] <asac> or we would have to maintain a diff for them [19:56] <mconnor> man [19:56] <mconnor> you guys should stop depending on Debian [19:56] <asac> mconnor: and thats what debian guy did ;) [19:56] <mconnor> would make life so much easier [19:56] <asac> mconnor: after he noticed that i work for canonical :) [19:57] <asac> mconnor: previously debian xulrunner (1.8) had a patch system ... for 1.9 he eliminated that and now maintains stuff in a private git archive [19:57] <mconnor> man [19:57] <asac> mconnor: so when i want to understand what they did i have to look at the monolithic diff.gz [19:57] <mconnor> I'm having flashbacks [19:58] <mconnor> to the monolithic firefox-1.5 diff [19:58] <mconnor> :P [19:58] <asac> mconnor: firefox 3 is still monolithic. but thats eric as you might remember [19:58] <asac> mike agreed for ages that we want individual patches [19:58] <asac> until i started on ubuntu ;) [19:58] <mconnor> man... [19:58] <mconnor> those guys [19:59] <mconnor> so Mike has a private git repo, with a monolithic diff [19:59] <mconnor> and Eric has a private SVN repo, or something, with a monolithic diff [19:59] <asac> mconnor: yeah ;) [19:59] <asac> mconnor: i think eric has a public git now [19:59] <asac> ;) [19:59] <mconnor> quality software practices there [19:59] <mconnor> lots of transparency [20:00] * mconnor mumbles something about openssl under his breath [20:00] <asac> mconnor: eric doesnt understand. mike does, but wants to pretend he doesnt understand :) [20:00] <asac> mconnor: yeah. definitly a good example that we need to be much more skeptical about what debian does [20:01] <asac> mconnor: of course its somehow unique. the majority of debian folks are quite good [20:01] <directhex> pkg-mono are nice! [20:01] <asac> problem is that they are no team players [20:01] <asac> everybody focusses on his pet-package [20:01] <mconnor> asac: yeah, I've noticed [20:01] <mconnor> and they think they're experts [20:01] <asac> and only cares about other things when it becomes a pain to locally workaround [20:02] <mconnor> that's my real worry with downstream [20:02] <mconnor> especially with mozilla, where we have too many dark corners [20:03] <mconnor> its just not sane to assume that 1-2 maintainers will know the right way to implement something [20:03] <mconnor> "Just because it works, doesn't mean its the right solution." [20:04] <mconnor> and stuff where you're adding features that only work in Ubuntu is sadmaking [21:09] <wiki> fta: Hi [21:16] <fta> wiki, hi [21:16] <wiki> the patches in the debian/patches dir,how are they made ?using quilt ? [21:19] <fta> quilt new my_new_patch.patch [21:19] <fta> quilt add mozilla/some/file1 [21:19] <fta> quilt add mozilla/some/file2 [21:19] <fta> quilt diff [21:19] <fta> quilt refresh [21:19] <fta> that's the basics [21:20] <wiki> :) [21:20] <wiki> fta: we released spicebird on 21st [21:21] <fta> excellent [21:23] <fta> of course, you need to edit your files *after* the corresponding add and *before* the refresh [21:26] <wiki> fta: once i upload the files in lp via dput ,they get built themselves ? [21:26] <fta> do you mean in a ppa ? [21:26] <wiki> yeah [21:27] <fta> then yes [21:40] <wiki> fta: how long do these virtual monsters take ?40~45 minutes ? [21:47] <paran> hi. I have for my personal use patched the flashplugin-nonfree package to download and install the new naitive 64bit plugin on amd64. [21:48] <paran> i will send my patch to bug 299146, but what do you think would be a good version number? [21:48] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 299146 in flashplugin-nonfree "flashplugin-nonfree on amd64 should use pure 64 bit plugin" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/299146 [21:48] <paran> right now I use 10.0.12.36ubuntu2~10.0.d20.7 (where 10.0.d20.7 is the amd64 version) [21:51] <asac> wiki: they start to build quite instantly [21:52] <asac> wiki: then the take the time they need and then it takes about 30 minutes until you can access the .debs [21:52] <wiki> asac: cool [21:52] <asac> paran: we will discuss during UDS how to properly package stuff up [21:52] <asac> paran: we still want the nspluginwrapper option as we also use that for i386 to prevent crashes of core firefox [21:53] <wiki> asac: we use ccache and disctcc on dual core debian etch with j8 flags to build our moz builds. It takes around 10 minutes :) [21:54] <asac> wiki: if its more or less a full mozilla the builds usually take 25-30 minutes [21:54] <asac> if you do more... add something on top ;) [21:55] <wiki> asac: to make a deb for hardy,will it be called a backport ? [21:56] <paran> asac: you mean use nspluginwrapper for all plugins on al arches then? [21:56] <wiki> what if I mention as hardy in the changelog ,how will ppa interpret it ? [21:56] <asac> paran: yes ... (optional for user) [21:57] <asac> paran: so when amd64 is final we will not use nspluginwrapper for cross-arch ... only for out-of-process stuff [21:57] <asac> paran: but what we want in the long run will be discussed during UDS [21:57] <asac> (and how to achive that) [21:57] <asac> paran: so atm if you install flashplugin-nonfree and have nspluginwrapper installed on i386 it will use nspluginwrapper [21:58] <paran> asac: ok. if you do that then please make it on a per plugin basis. the current code always uses nspluginwrapper if it is installed [21:58] <asac> if you dont have nspluginwrapper it will not use it [21:58] <asac> paran: thats one of the points that is not yet clear [21:58] <paran> asac: I will want naitive flash, but might need the wrapper for other 32bit only plugins [21:58] <asac> paran: any ideas how the user is supposed to manage that? [21:59] <asac> we will discuss, but getting more ideas up-front will be helpful i guess [22:00] <paran> you could install both wrapped and unwrapped as alternatives [22:00] <paran> so you could use update-alternative to select [22:03] <paran> asac: I will put the nspluginwrapper code I ripped out back into my package. :) did you have any idea about the version name? [22:04] <asac> paran: depends on where this will end up [22:04] <asac> paran: update-alternative has to die imo :) [22:04] <asac> paran: but the idea of having both installed is nice [22:08] <paran> asac: hehe, why? I think alternatives is really useful, once you learn how to use it. [22:09] <paran> asac: I just want to put some sort of sane version number before I send the patch in. [22:11] <paran> even if you decide to change how stuff work some of my (small) patch might be usefull, like downloading different tarballs dependin on arch [22:13] <asac> paran: we dont need alternatives anymore. you can currently pick one out of many available plugins in ubufox ... this will hopefully later go into the main firefox UI [22:13] <asac> paran: like: http://people.ubuntu.com/~asac/tmp/alt1.png [22:13] <asac> paran: http://people.ubuntu.com/~asac/tmp/alt2.png [22:14] <asac> paran: we would get two entries there for adobe: 1) adobe (native) 2) adobe (nspluginwrapped) [22:17] <paran> asac: that would be nice. [22:18] <asac> paran: yeah. i like it too. only problem we have to sort is that when you install nspluginwrapper post-mortem we would have to wrap already installed plugins too [22:18] <asac> but that can be done quite diligently i think [22:19] <asac> (currently the wrapped stuff is only generated when you install flash after nspluginwrapper) [22:19] <paran> yeah, I know :) [22:19] <paran> however I would recommend keeping the alternatives link in addition to ubufox. there are other browsers that would need that [22:20] <asac> paran: not sure. its really just clutter. konqueror does that on their own anyway [22:20] <asac> epiphany is a use-case agreed [22:20] <asac> but then ... thats a missing feature in epiphany i guess and in the long run it will use nspluginwrapper [22:21] <asac> err [22:21] <asac> it will use webkit ;) [22:21] <asac> thats what i wanted to say [22:21] <asac> but well [22:21] <asac> alternatives dont hurt for this mechanism [22:21] <asac> its just that they regularly break on users system [22:29] <paran> would have been better if it were more integrated with dpkg, is is easy to mess it up with postinst/prerm scripts [22:32] <asac> paran: maybe. but dpkg is from hell ... so fixing that there isnt easy either ;) [22:32] <paran> anyway, please don't remove the alternative for plugins unless you at least get the plugin chooser into the "normal" firefox package. [22:32] <asac> paran: also even if you do it right, alternatives have strange behaviour [22:32] <asac> for instance if you --remove the last option it will remember that you selected nothing and when -install a new alternative it will not select the only one that exists then. [22:32] <paran> I don't install ubufox because it pulls in a ton of gnome stuff [22:33] <asac> paran: thats a different issue [22:33] <asac> apturl needs to be fixed [22:33] <asac> but yeah [22:33] <asac> but as i said. this stuff is so cool that it belongs in the main firefox UI anyway [22:35] <paran> :) |