[03:27] Nice. What does it do? [03:28] adds module_version to some network drivers [03:32] mmm....spiffy...System of a Down - Mezmerize - BYOB _Bring Your Own Bombs_.mp3 === dilinger [dilinger@mouth.voxel.net] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [05:13] morning [05:30] good evening [05:31] morning fabbione [05:47] hey dilinger [05:47] make_kpkg is shitting on me [05:47] dpkg-gencontrol: error: package linux-xen0-2.6.10-5-386-xen0 not in control info [05:47] why on earth does it change linux-image into linux-xen0 [05:56] hrm... so who should 8189 really be assigned to, rather than kernel-team, I wonder [06:07] uh [06:07] i have no idea, that's really odd [06:08] 'linux' is set via --stub, the image bit should be from kernel-package.. [06:08] you built it w/ kernel_image? [06:09] dilinger: i used the same way we build the kenrels in ubuntu [06:10] i have no idea, i've never seen kernel-package do that [06:10] i need to get to bed, job interview tomorrow at 8:30 :( [06:11] dilinger: good night and good luck [06:11] lamont: 8189 is mostlikely our [06:11] thanks [06:11] usb-massstorage is teh sux [06:23] fabbione: yeah, but we assign them to debzilla or to an individual [06:23] rather than polluting kernel-team [06:24] kernel-bugs already gets them (qa contact is cc'ed...) [06:24] 99% sure.. :0) [06:24] right === lamont sleeps [06:25] night lamont === unifi [~unifi@68-174-114-59.nyc.rr.com] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [08:35] hey is anyone around? [08:35] I am trying to figure out where my kernel is [08:36] /boot [08:37] ok thanks... then what is in /lib/modules? [08:38] the modules that the kernel or the user can load on demand === Seveas [~seveas@seveas.demon.nl] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === Seveas [~seveas@seveas.demon.nl] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === zul [~chuck@198.62.158.205] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [02:59] hey [03:01] bleah since when did ati do ide [03:01] hi zul [03:02] hey fabbione how is it going? [03:07] not too bad [03:07] i committed some stuff in experimental you want to look at :) [03:07] like what? [03:08] xen? [03:08] ah...where again? [03:08] see /topic [03:09] ah sweet! [03:09] i didnt see that just woke up ;) [03:10] it has been there for a few days now :) [03:11] heh it shows you how observant i am [03:14] whats the difference between xen0 and xenu [03:19] i still need to improve the descriptions and fix the header packages [03:19] but basically xen0 is the kernel the boots the machine [03:19] xenu is the one that boots the virtual machines [03:20] ah ok [03:26] i am still not sure if we are handling xen properly... [03:26] right now i consider it a special cased flavour of i386 [03:27] but i think we will need to treat it as a separate arch [03:27] otherwise fixing the headers will be a royal mess [03:28] gotcha [03:55] zul: your updates to external drivers are bogus :) [03:55] that file matches what is in the kernel [03:55] not what is upstream [04:00] ah ok [04:00] well they should be in experimental then ;) [04:03] as soon as you update a driver, you update that file too [04:03] so you know what is in and what's not [04:03] ah got it === fabbione sighs [04:25] build time for i386 is almost doubled [04:30] hah hah === lamont looks at 212226, wonders if the kernel has changed any since that bug was filed... === lamont thinks xen is a separate arch [05:17] but we don't have a buildd for Architecture: xen [05:17] so it probably has to build on i386 [05:19] it can only build on i386 :) [05:19] atm [05:20] lamont: i have been puzzled about adding xen as arch/i386/*-xen* flavours [05:20] or add arch/xen-i386/$flavours [05:20] both cases have pro/cons at build time [05:20] right now i am just curious to get these test images out [05:21] we can always change the internal build at anytime [05:24] right - either way involves abusing things a little bit [05:24] actually, arch/i386/*-xen* (*.xen?) is probably the way to go, otherwise i386 needs to know how to build for 2 architectures, which is ugiler than having extra configs [05:25] well i was hoping in a xen-amd64 soon to be hounest [05:25] it alredy supportes x86_64 to certain degrees [05:25] lamont: there are still hacks around tbh [05:26] right. But either xen builds on 1 platform, or we have xen flavors of various platforms [05:26] like we need to build a special linux-headers package for Arch: "xen-i386" [05:26] ah [05:26] eitherway it needs to be built :) [05:26] well i mean that the standard headers are not ok for xen [05:26] since include/asm-xen is missing in the standard ones [05:26] so it sounds almost like there's a xen-i386 architecture, and i386 knows to build both i386 and xen-i386 [05:27] exactly [05:27] if you want to look at it from a pure theoretical point of view [05:27] than the Arch is xen-i386 [05:27] or even better: Arch: xen built on i386 [05:28] but clearly we can handle as we want internally [05:28] we are not introducing a brand new source, just a patch on top of what already exists [05:28] it's almost like we do for hppa [05:31] coolness === lamont wonders when t-bone was coming back [05:31] end of week? [05:32] i can't remember [05:36] ooh...i fucked up my palm === Seveaz [~seveas@seveas.demon.nl] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === jbailey [~jbailey@CPE000ded9d787c-CM014260028338.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [08:44] YAY [08:44] first full build of XEN packages [08:44] approx 4 hours [08:44] oi...thats alot [08:44] on i386 + distcc + ccache and -j 15 [08:45] well probably ccache got outdated [08:45] or something [09:01] fabbione: motu team has been asking me about the kernels in universe since they are not installable anymore should be tell tem to sync with debian for only arches we support? [09:03] zul: they should be able to decide themself. either solutions work for me [09:03] and the xen kernels are not compiled properly [09:03] okie dokie [09:03] damn make_kpkg [09:03] hehe [09:03] they build, but they can't boot [09:04] file xen-linux-2.6.10-5-686-xen0 [09:04] xen-linux-2.6.10-5-686-xen0: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, stripped [09:04] tsk [09:04] hehe [09:06] ill tell them to sync 386,686,686-smp,k7,k8 any others? [09:06] powerpc? ia64? sparc? [09:06] oh yes... [09:06] not on my radar ;) [09:07] lamont: do you care about hppa? [09:11] fabbione: sure [09:12] or do you mean something specific? [09:12] lamont: sync from debian -> universe [09:12] syncing what? [09:13] 2.6.11? [09:14] 2.6.8 [09:18] 2.6.8 is ancient for hppa, unless kyle has been busy... [09:21] i've not uploaded anything recently. [10:08] fabbione: sync debian's 2.4 stuff as well...i wouldnt think so because of initrd-tools and the like [10:09] because if i can recall jbailey said they havent been tested [10:09] whatever :) [10:10] zul: I'm guessing by now I would've heard some bitching if initrd-tools in Ubuntu was b0rked on 2.4 [10:10] ok thats cool.. [10:13] the debian 2.6.8 kernel for hppa is the one with the "expect bug" [10:14] so probably not a good idea to sync that one === palmnet_ [user@ppp-0-86.birm-b-2.access.uk.tiscali.com] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [11:13] later === palmnet_ [user@ppp-0-86.birm-b-2.access.uk.tiscali.com] has left #ubuntu-kernel []