Please review and sponsor FireGPG extension for Firefox

Ive set this package up on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Firefox3Extensions and set it up for autosync so once first sync is done i will start on it.

I have started a branch but there are a few things that need to be worked out before use.

One more litttle bug i need to get past and that should be it should have it working this week sometime.

Hopefully i will finish this up in next week or 2, i'm very busy in personal life at this time.

I am unable to work on this at this time so if someone wants it please fee free to take it but change info on the above wiki to add yourself.

ok im done with it for Intrepid I would likew Intrepid testing done before i build Hardy for PPA than test that before backporting to Hardy.
Right now you can test Intrepid's version on my PPA
https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak/+archive
Please don't upgrade to Intrepid just to test it.

Ok i uploaded Hardy's version to my PPA. Intrepids failed to build on PPA but built fine locally so Hardys might as well but i will talk to Lp guys to find out whats wrong.

ok both are uploaded and fixed so they build. i uploaded Hardy version as well please test these builds.

John Vivirito wrote:
> ok both are uploaded and fixed so they build. i uploaded Hardy version
> as well please test these builds.
>
>
i'm working on some changes to build at this time i will upload to PPA
ASAP and than fix my bzr branchs. hopfully will be done today.

Ready
https://code.launchpad.net/~gnomefreak/firefox-extensions/firegpg.ubuntu
https://code.launchpad.net/~gnomefreak/firefox-extensions/firegpg.upstream

uploaded to revu http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=firegpg

Waiting for an upload to overwrite the above to revu

Fixed a few lintian warnings and im waiting for a broken gnupg-agent to be fixed so i can test this on Intrepid i will update my PPA as soon as i get a chance to test it. I have tested on Hardy and it works for me

See bug #262959 for gnupg-agent bug
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnupg2/+bug/262959

Can someone please review and sponsor this package. The Revu link is below

http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=firegpg

this is finished waiting for someone to upload to Jaunty, You can find this in my PPa for Intrepid and Jaunty.
Updated status to in progress.

Added Ubuntu task and assigned asac to review and push as needed

Le lundi 08 décembre 2008 à 01:56:01, John Vivirito a écrit :
> Added Ubuntu task and assigned asac to review and push as needed
>

There is already iceweasel-firegpg in unstable/main and jaunty/universe.
Isn't it a better idea to merge it instead of repackaging it from
scratch?

--
Lionel Le Folgoc - https://launchpad.net/~mrpouit
EEBA 555E 0CDE 92BB 3AF4 4AB3 45A0 357B 5179 5910

On 12/08/2008 09:21 AM, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
> Le lundi 08 décembre 2008 à 01:56:01, John Vivirito a écrit :
>> Added Ubuntu task and assigned asac to review and push as needed
>>
>
> There is already iceweasel-firegpg in unstable/main and jaunty/universe.
> Isn't it a better idea to merge it instead of repackaging it from
> scratch?
>
We dont use iceweasel we use abrowser. We shouldnt have to fix each of
the iceweasel packages to support other browsers since at this time it
only depends on iceweasel and the packages are not updated but ours are.
We dont merge any mozilla apps from debian and we havee it so they get
our packages.

--
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
    -- Metallica from UnforgivenIII

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:11:45AM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
> On 12/08/2008 09:21 AM, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
> > Le lundi 08 décembre 2008 à 01:56:01, John Vivirito a écrit :
> >> Added Ubuntu task and assigned asac to review and push as needed
> >>
> >
> > There is already iceweasel-firegpg in unstable/main and jaunty/universe.
> > Isn't it a better idea to merge it instead of repackaging it from
> > scratch?
> >
> We dont use iceweasel we use abrowser. We shouldnt have to fix each of

Where did I say that we use iceweasel?

> the iceweasel packages to support other browsers since at this time it
> only depends on iceweasel and the packages are not updated but ours
> are.

Right, I understand (this looks like duplicate work though). Then you may
want to drop from the archive several iceweasel-* packages that landed in
jaunty.

> We dont merge any mozilla apps from debian and we havee it so they get
> our packages.

"it" == firegpg?
"they" == debian?
Why would Debian get our firegpg package?

--
Lionel Le Folgoc - https://launchpad.net/~mrpouit
EEBA 555E 0CDE 92BB 3AF4 4AB3 45A0 357B 5179 5910

Hello Lionel,

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:11:45AM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
>> On 12/08/2008 09:21 AM, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
>> > Le lundi 08 décembre 2008 à 01:56:01, John Vivirito a écrit :
>> >> Added Ubuntu task and assigned asac to review and push as needed
>> >>
>> >
>> > There is already iceweasel-firegpg in unstable/main and jaunty/universe.
>> > Isn't it a better idea to merge it instead of repackaging it from
>> > scratch?
>> >
>> We dont use iceweasel we use abrowser. We shouldnt have to fix each of
>
> Where did I say that we use iceweasel?
>
>> the iceweasel packages to support other browsers since at this time it
>> only depends on iceweasel and the packages are not updated but ours
>> are.
>
> Right, I understand (this looks like duplicate work though). Then you may
> want to drop from the archive several iceweasel-* packages that landed in
> jaunty.
>
>> We dont merge any mozilla apps from debian and we havee it so they get
>> our packages.
>
> "it" == firegpg?
> "they" == debian?
> Why would Debian get our firegpg package?

I see your point, but we (Mozilla team) are currently using scripts
provided by mozilla-devscripts package for extensions packaging, in
particular xpi.mk and med-xpi-pack, to make the process easier to the
packager. The package is not available in Debian, and we are working
on the solution to include some part of that package in Debian too.
Until that happens, our and Debian's way of extension packaging
heavily differs, so it is not possible to reuse their packaging.

Also, asac and Volans are working on set of scripts which would
automatically check for newer versions of all our extensions and try
to auto-update packages. That is why we are maintaining packaging in
bzr branches. I'm not sure whether that will be included in Debian.

We are doing all of this in order to try to bring more extensions into
the archive, and to be able to give regularly updated extensions to
the user.

So, for now, some of the extensions are merged, those on which we
haven't worked on. In case firegpg has relatively newer version in
Debian, we could use that package, but I think it will be adapted at
some point to make use of scripts in mozilla-devscripts and
auto-update scripts.

I agree that diverge from Debian's packaging and double work are not
good in case they're not needed, but I think it's not the case here. I
hope that we will be able to include some of our work in Debian,
making the merging process a lot easier, at least with Debian using
mozilla-devscripts for extensions.

--
Best regards,
Saša Bodiroža

On 12/09/2008 09:10 AM, Saša Bodiroža wrote:
> Hello Lionel,
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:11:45AM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2008 09:21 AM, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
>>>> Le lundi 08 décembre 2008 à 01:56:01, John Vivirito a écrit :
>>>>> Added Ubuntu task and assigned asac to review and push as needed
>>>>>
>>>> There is already iceweasel-firegpg in unstable/main and jaunty/universe.
>>>> Isn't it a better idea to merge it instead of repackaging it from
>>>> scratch?
>>>>
>>> We dont use iceweasel we use abrowser. We shouldnt have to fix each of
>> Where did I say that we use iceweasel?
>>
>>> the iceweasel packages to support other browsers since at this time it
>>> only depends on iceweasel and the packages are not updated but ours
>>> are.
>> Right, I understand (this looks like duplicate work though). Then you may
>> want to drop from the archive several iceweasel-* packages that landed in
>> jaunty.
>>
>>> We dont merge any mozilla apps from debian and we havee it so they get
>>> our packages.
>> "it" == firegpg?
>> "they" == debian?
>> Why would Debian get our firegpg package?
>
> I see your point, but we (Mozilla team) are currently using scripts
> provided by mozilla-devscripts package for extensions packaging, in
> particular xpi.mk and med-xpi-pack, to make the process easier to the
> packager. The package is not available in Debian, and we are working
> on the solution to include some part of that package in Debian too.
> Until that happens, our and Debian's way of extension packaging
> heavily differs, so it is not possible to reuse their packaging.
>
> Also, asac and Volans are working on set of scripts which would
> automatically check for newer versions of all our extensions and try
> to auto-update packages. That is why we are maintaining packaging in
> bzr branches. I'm not sure whether that will be included in Debian.
>
> We are doing all of this in order to try to bring more extensions into
> the archive, and to be able to give regularly updated extensions to
> the user.
>
> So, for now, some of the extensions are merged, those on which we
> haven't worked on. In case firegpg has relatively newer version in
> Debian, we could use that package, but I think it will be adapted at
> some point to make use of scripts in mozilla-devscripts and
> auto-update scripts.
>
> I agree that diverge from Debian's packaging and double work are not
> good in case they're not needed, but I think it's not the case here. I
> hope that we will be able to include some of our work in Debian,
> making the merging process a lot easier, at least with Debian using
> mozilla-devscripts for extensions.
>
Debians iceweasel-firegpg is at version 0.5.* and our firegpg package is
at 0.6.2 IIRC i have it i just can look at it atm. The problem i have
with reusing the iceweasel-* extensions is 1 outdated.
2. if we were to use thier packages we would drop the iceweasel name and
have to modifiy thier package for deps and such, than upgrade to newest
version.
Ours has also been tested.
instead we need to just use ours to cut the extrs work

--
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

ht...

On 12/09/2008 03:32 AM, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:11:45AM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
>> On 12/08/2008 09:21 AM, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote:
>>> Le lundi 08 décembre 2008 à 01:56:01, John Vivirito a écrit :
>>>> Added Ubuntu task and assigned asac to review and push as needed
>>>>
>>> There is already iceweasel-firegpg in unstable/main and jaunty/universe.
>>> Isn't it a better idea to merge it instead of repackaging it from
>>> scratch?
>>>
>> We dont use iceweasel we use abrowser. We shouldnt have to fix each of
>
> Where did I say that we use iceweasel?
>
>> the iceweasel packages to support other browsers since at this time it
>> only depends on iceweasel and the packages are not updated but ours
>> are.
>
> Right, I understand (this looks like duplicate work though). Then you may
> want to drop from the archive several iceweasel-* packages that landed in
> jaunty.
>
>> We dont merge any mozilla apps from debian and we havee it so they get
>> our packages.
>
> "it" == firegpg?
> "they" == debian?
> Why would Debian get our firegpg package?
>
I have already filied a bug to remove the 4 iceweasel apps from Jaunty
archives. bug #306229 is the bug that i filed to remove them.

--
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
    -- Metallica from UnforgivenIII

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 03:09:03PM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
> Debians iceweasel-firegpg is at version 0.5.* and our firegpg package is
> at 0.6.2 IIRC i have it i just can look at it atm. The problem i have
> with reusing the iceweasel-* extensions is 1 outdated.
> 2. if we were to use thier packages we would drop the iceweasel name and
> have to modifiy thier package for deps and such,

FYI, this is called a merge
(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Merging). And no need to
touch the source package name, only the binary one.

> than upgrade to newest version.
> Ours has also been tested.
> instead we need to just use ours to cut the extrs work

Iceweasel-firegpg is in unstable and testing since July, thus, it has been
tested too. The previous comment from Saša was much more pertinent about
the reasoning (especially the auto-update stuff), so you don't have to add
random and wrong reasons to it, please.

In a prefect world, a common (i.e., Debian and Ubuntu) rename of the package
to firegpg (it should work on iceweasel, firefox, and so on, so no need to
prepend the name) would really cut the extra work, for *both* sides (look at
enigmail for instance).
Anyway, we don't live in a perfect world[1], so do as you want.

[1] but there is hope: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=489745

--
Lionel Le Folgoc - https://launchpad.net/~mrpouit
EEBA 555E 0CDE 92BB 3AF4 4AB3 45A0 357B 5179 5910

On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:56:04PM -0000, Launchpad Bug Tracker wrote:
> You have been subscribed to a public bug:
>
> I will be packaging FireGPG for use in Firefox it allows you to use
> GnuPG on websites

latest merge request still had an issue with upstream branch not being
properly merged from what i recall. see merge request review for
details.

 - Alexander

Packagin FireGPG from debian package is not a good idea as the version is affected by serious security issues ;)

-
A FireGPG developper

On 12/26/2008 07:44 PM, Maximilien Cuony wrote:
> Packagin FireGPG from debian package is not a good idea as the version
> is affected by serious security issues ;)
>
> -
> A FireGPG developper
>
That i knew that is one reason why i have been pusdhing to get it in
Ubuntu than merge to Debian. I would like to do all that for icewaeasel
extensions. Honestly whom ever set up the sync for them should have
really should have asked one of us but i think dropping the sync/merge
from Debian. i will talk to Alexander about this maybe early next week
or today if i see him

Thank you for commenting on the bug.

--
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
    -- Metallica from Unforgiven III

Alexander please let me know where we are on this, I dont have my dev box with me but depending on what has been decided i can continue with this if newer upstream release fixing something other than Win bugs.

I will update to latest and get it in Karmic if i have enough time for this dev cycle.

Moved both tasks back to triaged until i start on it again

I upodated this to latest version 0.7.5
Upstream removed the FireGPGCall dir. so as a temp fix i commented out the clean call in rules to fix FTBFS
I will get with Alexander this week if i get time to fix it perm.
This has been uploaded to my PPA for Karmic and Jaunty.see links below:

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak/+archive/ppa

https://code.launchpad.net/~gnomefreak/firefox-extensions/firegpg.ubuntu

https://code.launchpad.net/~gnomefreak/firefox-extensions/firegpg.upstream

Ok we need to fix the clean call in debian/rules than i will send fix to upstream author, than update it to latest release. We need to check on other things as well list to follow:
# ensure mozilla-devscripts 0.15 is used
# ensure that ${xpi:Depends} is used and be sure to add it under Recommends: field.
# ensure that no packages (browsers / mail clients) are in Depends: cause ${xpi:Depends} will do the trick for us
# ensure that Standards-Version 3.8.3 or 3.8.4 (not sure if 3.8.4 has been used yet) is used.
# ensure that you add reference to this wiki page in debian/changelog.
# verify that the extension works with ffox 3.5
# ensure that the extension do *not* ship an extra license file. Make use of MOZ_XPI_DOCUMENTED_LICENSE_FILES feature to remove them eventually.

For the above changes refer to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Karmic/ExtensionReview#preview
to see if anything changes.

This is mainly to remind me once i get caught up on this package.

Working on this with debian maintainer to clean it up a bit so we can push to Sid and sync for Lucid

I am not going to have time for this until at least Lucid+1
If someone feels like working on this. it needs to be updated to latest release and fix the clean rule in debian/rules to clean FireGPGCall, they moved that dir/files so the original clean call is not updated.

ok it looks like it was pushed to Debian Sid but has not been synced to Lucid yet.
This is from my Sid chroot:

(sid)gnomefreak@Development:~$ search firegpg
xul-ext-firegpg - Iceweasel/Firefox extension to use GnuPG on the web
(sid)gnomefreak@Development:~$ policy xul-ext-firegpg
xul-ext-firegpg:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 0.7.10-1
  Version table:
     0.7.10-1 0
        500 http://ftp.nl.debian.org unstable/main Packages

Upgraded status to Fix Committed since we uploaded to Debian Sid it will be upgraded to fix released once it is synced to Lucid

It was synced, but it FTBFS on Ubuntu.

On 12/12/09 11:11, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> It was synced, but it FTBFS on Ubuntu.
>
Last time it was FTBFS was due to the FireGPGCall clean, they
moved the FireGPGCall files from top level dir to deeper in
the files. If you comment out the clean rule does it still
fail? if you can post the rules file and the fail error i
might be able to help with it.

--
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
    -- Metallica from Unforgiven III

No, the build log [1,2] shows that it's a compile error:

c++ -Wall -Wconversion -Wpointer-arith -Woverloaded-virtual -Wsynth -Wno-ctor-dtor-privacy -Wno-non-virtual-dtor -Wcast-align -Wno-long-long -Os -g -c -o nsIPCModule.o -include mozilla-config.h -include xpcom-config.h `pkg-config --cflags-only-I libxul-unstable` -I ../src -I ../public -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -shared -fPIC -pthread -pipe -fvisibility=hidden nsIPCModule.cpp
In file included from ../src/nsProcessInfo.h:39,
                 from nsIPCModule.cpp:37:
/usr/include/xulrunner-1.9.1.5/unstable/nsStringAPI.h:1054: error: size of array 'arg' is negative
/usr/include/xulrunner-1.9.1.5/unstable/nsStringAPI.h: In function 'const nsDependentSubstring_external Substring(const PRUnichar*, const PRUnichar*)':
/usr/include/xulrunner-1.9.1.5/unstable/nsStringAPI.h:1272: warning: conversion to 'PRUint32' from 'long int' may alter its value
/usr/include/xulrunner-1.9.1.5/unstable/nsStringAPI.h: In function 'const nsDependentCSubstring_external Substring(const char*, const char*)':
/usr/include/xulrunner-1.9.1.5/unstable/nsStringAPI.h:1310: warning: conversion to 'PRUint32' from 'long int' may alter its value

[1] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firegpg
[2] http://launchpadlibrarian.net/36062363/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-amd64.firegpg_0.7.10-1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz

This has been pushed to Lucid.

gnomefreak@Development:~$ policy xul-ext-firegpg
xul-ext-firegpg:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 0.7.10-1ubuntu1
  Version table:
     0.7.10-1ubuntu1 0
        500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com lucid/universe Packages