User1: kbrosnan: should I repeat the question here?
User1: hi, do you guys know if firefox-next ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-next?field.series_filter=maverick is going to be updated soon to the new beta?
User1: User2 hi, is firefox-next ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-next?field.series_filter=maverick going to be updated soon to the new beta? :)
User2: User1 yes, I forget what we're waiting on ATM
User2: User6 ^^
User1: ok, thanks micahg :)
User2: User1 I can't wait myself to get the new JS engine :)
User1: ;)
User3: jcastro, http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev/browse_thread/thread/eaf3923ca175bd34#  may be interesting to follow for someone on our side, please forward
User4: micahg, chrisccoulson, User7 we have a problem in natty: bug #674171 - it probably will break all new builds of extensions
User5: Launchpad bug 674171 in mozilla-devscripts (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "[NATTY] Adblock 1.3.1doesn't load up in FF 3.6.12 (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/674171
User2: User4 I saw that, so is that the bug that question marks are added?
User4: User2 yes
User2: User4 ok, do you want me to try to fix it?
User2: I can't look at it until the weekend though
User6: well, all extensions will stop working next week anyway
User6: (once FF4 is in)
User2: User6 no, abp is ready for FF4
User6: oh, that's ok then. but, i guess most others will stop working ;)
User2: User6 right :)
User2: User6 I'll try to finish up TB on lucid tonight if I can otherwise by Monday
User6: thanks
User4: User2 thanks for the offer. it yours unless i have the time to digg into it before the weekend.
User2: User4 k, np
 * micahg guesses subscribing would be a good thing
User2: User4 would this be a 0.25 release to Debian experimental or 0.24.1?
User2: or just take dch -i's default
User6: m'eh, using strings in firefox is so confusing
User4: User2 0.25
User2: User4 k
User7: User6 whats going on with debian ... they dont even have iw 3.6 in unstable/testing?
User7: 3.5.15-1
User2: User7 no because SeaMonkey can't be built on 1.9.2
User7: is that the version they want to release as stable? thought its already EOL
User6: asac - yeah, it's crazy that they're going to release with a browser that's pretty much EOL
User7: what has sm to do with iw ?
User7: i thought they dont use xr as base anymore too
User6: we're going to be 2 whole releases ahead of debian within the next week or so ;)
User7: or are they still stuck with that approach ;)
User7: and all because they think the rational  "duplication of code makes security support harder" ;)
User2: User7 yeah, they want to build ID, IW, and IA all off of one xulrunner
User6: i don't think duplication of code makes security support harder in this case, when we still have to deal with the same number of tarballs ;)
User7: id even?
User7: i think i will start calling my id guy again ;)
User2: User7 here's the thread on debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/06/msg00535.html
User7: i am not sure i want to read that ;)
User7: " there is not enough hand power to maintain several versions of
User7: xulrunner in the same suite (especially stable)
User7: "
User7: i remember how i was bashed to use versioned xulrunner source
User7: i mean ... atm, they dont maintain it at all
User7: "Security support
User7: for stable will be easier if there is only one branch to support for the
User7: whole gecko ecosystem.Security support
User7: for stable will be easier if there is only one branch to support for the
User7: whole gecko ecosystem."
User2: User7 makes some sense, since they won't jump versions, they're stuck backporting patches for only one xul version
User7: right. but thats the problem
User7: if you bump into walls for years and fail constantly its time to take a step back and look for a different route
User2: User7 indeed, but it's Debian, if you want to bump versions in a stable release, you need to be in volatile
User7: if there is no other path, you have to build one, rather than running against known walls again
User2: which was actually proposed and shot down on the ML
User7: thats all bull shit. when i started doing security backports for debian they couldnt even do minor version upgrades
User7: i was able to ensure that this can happen by working hard
User7: its really just some egos that dont want to adopt ubuntu approaches ;)
User7: i mean ... even if you cannot security maintain xulrunner, at least do it for iceweasel
User7: and make a standalone package for it
User7: same for icedove ;)
User7: anyway .... me stops now
User2: User7 they still won't jump minor versions (i.e. lenny has 3.0.6)
User7: yes they do
User7: well ... no clue why that is
User7: but a while back we were able to do minor version bumps
User7: and it was perfectly fine... its just that noone does those uploads i figure
User7: and they hide under some pseudo arguments that are completely untrue ;)
User7: as a matter of fact the debian maintainer just cares about unstable
User7: but well... /me stops ;)
User2: User6 oh, BTW, pyxpcom was FTBFS and I said I'd look into it, are we blacklisting or can we make it work?
User6: micahg - we shouldn't take pyxpcom atm, it just won't work with the way we package xulrunner
User6: and i don't want to have to update pyxpcom every time we do a firefox update ;)
User2: User6 so blacklist, as unmaintainable for the moment?
User6: yeah, that would be best
User2: User6 k, thanks, I'll take care of it
User6: thanks
User7: User6 whats actually the reason for the plugin-container always looping even though there is no website open?
User7: is that a known bug or just me?
User6: asac - hmmmm, is it actually using the CPU?
User6: i think it's by design that plugin-container keeps running
User7: User6 not sure... i looked at powertop a few times and found that its under top 6 of wakeup reasons all the time ;)
User7: interestingly right now its not doing it
User6: asac - along with firefox? ;)
User7: but i am sure it was doing it all day even though no tab was open
User7: User6 yeah. firefox is also always there
User7: but plugin-container was more astonishing as there was no plugin active for sure
User6: yeah, firefox is pretty bad for wakeups
User7: e.g. just a grey tab
User7: right. i dont know if firefox problem can be fixed ever ;)
User6: yeah, i'm not sure either. i'd love to be able to fix it ;)
ubuntu-mozillateam
Ubuntu IRC