[12:10] <T-Bone> lamont: please enable CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM in all hppa configs (to support more than 4GB RAM). kylem says it's ok on all configs, debian has it
[12:11] <T-Bone> (more than 3.75GB to be precise)
[12:13] <lamont> Total Memory: 3840 Mb
[12:13] <lamont> grukble
[12:15] <lamont> T-Bone: can 32-bit machines have > 4GB RAM?
[12:15] <T-Bone> lamont: sure, if you run a 32bit kernel
[12:16] <lamont> doh
[12:16] <T-Bone> should ask in #parisc, they're discussin that issue
[12:16] <lamont> actually get 2^44 bits of address space for physical
[12:16] <T-Bone> but we *really* want it for -34 for the builders ;)
[01:22] <lamont> fabbione: next ABI event, hppa should have CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM=y in all 4 configurations. (causes an ABI event)
[01:44] <lamont> fabbione: and is the abi checker smart enough that one can just change the abi version, and it just generates the new files and ignores the old?  that'd be cool.:-)
[03:53] <mainer> hi: new to ubuntu: are there any people or sites that provide .deb pkgd kernel-images?
[03:54] <mainer> anyone home?
[03:59] <crimsun> goodness
[03:59] <dilinger> hah
[04:09] <calc> i found out the problem i was having yesterday with mdz's help
[04:10] <calc> the initrd doesn't load the chipset specific ide driver so it ends up getting loaded after the generic one
[04:50] <fabbione> morning
[04:50] <lamont> morning fabbione
[04:51] <zul> evening
[04:51] <lamont> fabbione: we planning to keep the 2.6.10 tree alive for breezy, or roll to 2.6.11?
[04:51] <zul> i thought it was 2.6.12
[04:51] <lamont> 2.6.13!!
[04:52] <lamont> or will they skip that one out of superstition?
[04:52] <fabbione> lamont: if version X has an abi change, it ignores X-1, but we still need to generate the abi for X+1
[04:52] <lamont> right
[04:52] <fabbione> i was thinking to skip .11 completely
[04:52] <fabbione> according to dilinger is a crappy kernel
[04:53] <fabbione> and it would be heaps load of work to port to .11
[04:53] <lamont> although I must admit that I'm tempted to let -34 be an hppa-abi event and bastardize things to keep it at 5.  It's not even in the archive and all that... :-)
[04:53] <fabbione> specially the security fixes that are not in .11
[04:53] <lamont> right
[04:53] <lamont> 12 sounds good to me
[04:53] <fabbione> lamont: i have no isseus if you want to modify hppa
[04:53] <lamont> and that can go in as soon as breezy opens, yes?
[04:53] <fabbione> nobody other than you and T-bone are using it right now
[04:53] <lamont> fabbione: is ABI event...  I have to debate whether I care enough to worry about it.
[04:53] <fabbione> and it has never been published
[04:53] <lamont> right
[04:54] <zul> lamont: heh its giong to be a party once breezy opens ;)
[04:54] <lamont> zul: zact;y
[04:54] <lamont> zactly, even
[04:54] <fabbione> lamont: we will go .12 as soon as .12 is released
[04:54] <lamont> doh
[04:54] <fabbione> lamont: that will take us more or less 2/3 days to prepare
[04:54] <lamont> no 2.6.11.really.2.6.12?
[04:55] <fabbione> is there any reason why you need .12 so badly?
[04:55] <dilinger> when does breezy open?
[04:55] <lamont> I rather expect after UDU, truthfully
[04:55] <fabbione> dilinger: a few days after hoary is released
[04:55] <fabbione> lamont: i think james will be faster this time :)
[04:55] <lamont> prior to really opening breezy, there are plans to rebuild everything with gcc-4.0...
[04:56] <lamont> not sure if that's going to lockstep or not.
[04:56] <fabbione> ah right
[04:56] <fabbione> gcc-4 transition
[04:56] <zul> iirc there are some kernel build issues with gcc-4
[04:56] <lamont> so it's really a question of "what are the plans between hoary-release and breezy-start...
[04:56] <lamont> otherwise, breezy could start _now_
[04:56] <fabbione> zul: yes
[04:56] <lamont> zul: there are build issues with lots of stuff..
[04:56] <fabbione> zul: we can't stay with 2.6.10
[04:57] <lamont> the full build wouldn't go into the actual archive
[04:57] <fabbione> it will probably FTBFS
[04:57] <zul> heh one of should try building with gcc-4 :)
[04:57] <fabbione> i can do that right away :)
[04:57] <zul> ahhh...i was going to do that...
[04:57] <zul> :)
[04:57] <fabbione> but iirc the miscompilations were on arch != i386
[04:58] <lamont> given that the current gcc-3.4, gcc-4.0 are FTBFS on hppa..... :(
[04:58] <fabbione> zul: go ahead and do it
[04:58] <zul> goody
[04:58] <fabbione> hppa sucks :)
[04:58] <lamont> fabbione: feh
[04:58] <fabbione> they build on sparc
[04:58] <lamont> java assertions, doko thinks he knows what the fix is, won't go in before release
[04:58] <zul> does ubuntu actually work on sparc now/
[04:58] <lamont> if I get bored this week, I'll test his fix
[04:59] <lamont> (2 buildd's and a router)
[04:59] <lamont> anyway, bed time for me.,
[05:00] <fabbione> zul: yes it does
[05:01] <fabbione> lamont: don't rush.. i woke one hour earlier than usual :)
[05:01] <zul> cool...i have an ultra1 lying around
[05:01] <fabbione> zul: unfortunatly it won't install
[05:01] <fabbione> because elmo stopped rsyncing sparc.u.c
[05:01] <zul> blah
[05:01] <fabbione> due to some server load problems
[05:02] <fabbione> he promised me to move it somewhere else
[05:02] <fabbione> but afaik he didn't yet
[05:03] <zul> ok...well i can wait...somtimes patiently
[05:03] <fabbione> perhaps i can convince elmo to do a pulse todya
[05:03] <fabbione> let see
[05:04] <fabbione> lamont: sometimes soon i will need some help to add breezy/hoary-security/hoary-updates to the buildd.
[05:04] <fabbione> because tbh i never had the need to build more than one release
[05:05] <fabbione> and i can't remember crap on how to do it :)
[05:10] <zul> i think it might be time for me to go to bed...later folks
[05:11] <fabbione> lamont: i was thinking that it could actually be an option to open a 2.6.12 branch
[05:12] <fabbione> creating an orig from bk
[05:12] <fabbione> but that means that the orig must be used internally and not published
[05:12] <fabbione> becuase we will replace it with the real one once it's out
[02:43] <zul> morning
[02:45] <lamont> fabbione: other option is to open a 2.6.12 branch with a 2.6.11pre12.orig.tar.gz
[02:47] <makx> lamont around?
[02:47] <lamont> yo
[02:47] <makx> i wanted to ask question how you'd think daily builds should be properly set up.
[02:48] <makx> doing it d-k wise but it should be same, i guess.
[02:48] <makx> fabbione hinted me that you may have usefull pointers on last u-k meeting.
[02:49] <makx> i've played around a bit and have a skript that svn co d-k and builds images atm.
[02:51] <lamont> if the plan is to have these in the archive, then it's simply a matter of uploading fresh source every day.  Ideally, it'd have an orig.tar.gz that had nearly everything, and then just a diff.gz for the day, until such time as the diff got large enough and we cut a new orig.tar.gz
[02:51] <lamont> less bits to up/down load that wya
[02:52] <lamont> fabbione: cutting even an internal-only orig.tar.gz that's incorrect is a bad plan...
[02:52] <makx> lamont: aah you are building u-k directly out of source.
[02:53] <makx> forgot that bit.
[02:54] <makx> experimental still sounds like a nice target for those.
[02:55] <makx> ok, so i'll have to work on the unifying of the d-k packaging.
[02:58] <makx> lamont: ok thanks for the hint.
[03:00] <lamont> kids->school
[03:01] <zul> figgin xp
[03:27] <zul> oh this sucks..ply a matter of uploading fresh source every day.  Ideally, it'd have an orig.tar.gz that had nearly everything, and then just a diff.gz for the day, until such time as the diff got large enough and we cut a new orig.tar.gz
[03:27] <zul> lamont less bits to up/down load that wya
[03:28] <zul> frig...stupid gnome...sorry
[03:28] <zul> what i really wanted to say dpkg-architecture: warning: Couldn't determine gcc system type, falling back to default (native compilation)
[03:34] <zul> uh...nevermind
[03:39] <zul> ftbs with gcc-4.0
[04:09] <zul> hey lamont 
[04:27] <lamont> fabbione: you around?
[04:34] <zul> heh that will get his attention
[04:36] <lamont> grumble.  worse than I wanted it to be
[04:49] <lamont> changing the ${arch}.ignore case to still do diffs
[04:49] <lamont> if it can, that is.
[04:53] <fabbione> lamont: i am now
[04:54] <fabbione> i completely crashed
[04:57] <lamont> heh
[04:57] <lamont> added some code to the .ignore case to still do the diff if there's both an abi file and the .ignore file
[04:58] <fabbione> lamont: i make no objections if it has been tested :)
[04:58] <lamont> test build is running now
[04:59] <fabbione> cool
[04:59] <lamont> well, actually, the .dsc is packaging now.
[04:59] <fabbione> if everybody is happy and the situation is normal i am off again to enjoy a bit of sunshine
[04:59] <fabbione> and i will be back in an hour or so
[05:00] <lamont> later
[05:00] <fabbione> later :)
[05:00] <zul> toodles
[05:04] <lamont> fabbione: of course, the new code is so that hppa can have a well documented non-abi event. :-)  We're testing to see if there are more than 2 users, you see... :)
[05:06] <zul> heh...its not like you would break something on i386 like i usually do and people notice these things
[05:13] <lamont> zul: this is intentionally ignoring the abi change that really should create 2.6.10-6, but won't.
[05:13] <zul> ah i c
[05:17] <lamont> yeah.  both t-bone and I agree that we should, so that's 100% of the known user community of our non-existant port.
[05:17] <lamont> well, s/non-existant port/non-advertised archive/
[05:18] <lamont> which means that we have abi files, we're breaking abi compatibility on that archtecture only, and specifically ignoring that fact.
[05:18] <lamont> lalalalalala
[05:18] <zul> heh
[05:19] <zul> crap..i have a dentist appointment today
[05:23] <lamont> zul: that'd be protcologist. :-)
[05:24] <zul> speaking of protcologist...nah...i dont think you wanna know :)
[05:25] <lamont> really crappy work
[05:25] <zul> hehe
[05:25] <lamont> gotta wonder what makes  a med student _decide_ to specialize that direction...
[05:26] <zul> fetish maybe
[05:27] <zul> could be a little from column a, a little from column b
[05:42] <lamont> gotta figure out where the hppa.ignore file gets removed
[05:46] <lamont> ok.  empty files and debuild -S don't seem to mix.
[05:58] <fabbione> lamont: it's the kernel make clean target that kills empty files
[05:58] <fabbione> Unpacking libmpfr-dev (from .../libmpfr-dev_2.1.0-2ubuntu1_sparc.deb) ...
[05:58] <fabbione> dpkg: error processing /opt/sparcbuildd/chroots/chroot-hoary/var/cache/apt/archives/libmpfr-dev_2.1.0-2ubuntu1_sparc.deb (--unpack):
[05:58] <fabbione>  trying to overwrite `/usr/share/info/dir.old.gz', which is also in package texinfo
[05:58] <fabbione> dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe)
[05:58] <fabbione> hmmm
[06:00] <fabbione> i guess i have some crap in the buildd cache
[06:00] <lamont> was old texinfo bug did that.
[06:01] <fabbione> yeah i remember that
[06:01] <fabbione> but gcc-4.0 has been built a while ago
[06:02] <fabbione> i mean that i did build gcc-4 other times
[06:02] <fabbione> without problems
[07:06] <zul> fabbione: ccache me thinks
[07:07] <fabbione> zul: nah. i am talking about building gcc-4.0
[07:07] <fabbione> ccache can cope with a different compilare
[07:07] <fabbione> compiler
[07:07] <fabbione> it did build before today
[07:07] <zul> fabbione: i got the same with export CC="ccache gcc-4.0"
[07:13] <fabbione> zul: so 2.6.10 doesn't build with gcc-4.0
[07:13] <zul> nope
[07:13] <T-Bone> how suprising :P
[07:13] <T-Bone> neither am i, just being sarcastic ;}
[07:14] <zul> sure sure
[07:14] <fabbione> T-Bone: i could understand that... you are french :P
[07:14] <T-Bone> fabbione: and? Aren't you italian? :)
[07:14] <fabbione> yes i am
[07:14] <T-Bone> what so different about us then? :)
[07:15] <fabbione> that you are french and i am not?
[07:15] <T-Bone> the way we cook spaghettis? :)
[07:15] <fabbione> no.. you don't cook spaghettis
[07:15] <T-Bone> LOL
[07:15] <T-Bone> here we go =)
[07:15] <fabbione> :)
[07:16] <zul> fabbione: dies in drivers/acpi
[07:17] <T-Bone> fabbione: that has to be a compliment! =] 
[07:17] <zul> T-Bone: why would you leave .fr because you are too french?
[07:17] <zul> hehe
[07:17] <fabbione> T-Bone: i would never go back to live in italy.. why would you do that?
[07:17] <T-Bone> zul: no. I was hypothetising :)
[07:17] <fabbione> zul: ok
[07:17] <zul> ah
[07:17] <T-Bone> fabbione: why wouldn't you?
[07:18] <fabbione> T-Bone: because Italy is only a very nice place to have holidays
[07:18] <T-Bone> LOL
[07:18] <fabbione> that's about it
[07:18] <fabbione> working there.. sucks
[07:18] <T-Bone> ah
[07:18] <fabbione> internet there .. sucks
[07:18] <T-Bone> can't tell
[07:18] <fabbione> government.. questionable
[07:18] <T-Bone> lol
[07:19] <zul>  bersecloni?
[07:19] <fabbione> all the rest != some resturant = the sucks
[07:19] <fabbione> berlusconi
[07:19] <T-Bone> yet, food is cool, weather is cool, ragazza cool, monuments cool, landscape cool... ;)
[07:19] <zul> lazio cool ;)
[07:19] <fabbione> T-Bone: aren't you married?
[07:19] <fabbione> zul: ahahha
[07:19] <T-Bone> fabbione: hell no!
[07:19] <T-Bone> ;)
[07:20] <fabbione> T-Bone: if you really want to get laid to death you should go and visit siciliy
[07:20] <fabbione> just remember to get a fake id before going there
[07:20] <T-Bone> i'm 24 dude. I'm not gonna emprison myself while I'm at the peak of my sex appeal ;)
[07:20] <zul> not going to touch it..
[07:20] <T-Bone> i went to sicily ;)
[07:20] <fabbione> otherwise one of these hot chicks might show up at your door in france with a mini T-Bone
[07:20] <T-Bone> LOL
[07:21] <fabbione> dude... 24?
[07:21] <fabbione> hell you are kid
[07:21] <T-Bone> fabbione: that's what they say in movies, is that so true?
[07:21] <zul> you are a young'un t-bone
[07:21] <fabbione> T-Bone: i lived in sicily for 4 years...
[07:21] <T-Bone> fabbione: sure. I'm trying to grow chest hair. Ask lamont-away =)
[07:21] <fabbione> well it is true in certain parts of siciliy
[07:21] <fabbione> ahahahaha
[07:22] <T-Bone> i guess this might be true in certain parts of Corsica as well :)
[07:22] <zul> hah
[07:22] <fabbione> well corsica is france territory and i have never been there
[07:23] <T-Bone> fabbione: you're late on topic. Lamont has put that one in the very early days of #u-kernel ;] 
[07:23] <T-Bone> fabbione: never been to france?
[07:23] <fabbione> yeah but i wasn't here
[07:23] <T-Bone> ah ok :)
[07:23] <fabbione> T-Bone: oh yeah.. i have been to france several times
[07:23] <T-Bone> ah!
[07:23] <fabbione> specially in Paris
[07:24] <fabbione> that's just because the best airshow in EU is/was there
[07:24] <T-Bone> said to be the most beautiful city in the world...
[07:24] <zul> i been to paris once
[07:24] <fabbione> T-Bone: bullshit.. Rome > Paris
[07:24] <T-Bone> airshow?
[07:24] <T-Bone> fabbione: lol, no way :)
[07:24] <fabbione> T-Bone: yeah.. Le Bourget
[07:24] <T-Bone> fabbione: you don't have the Eiffel tower in Rome ;)
[07:24] <fabbione> (sorry for the spelling)
[07:24] <T-Bone> fabbione: ah! I see
[07:24] <T-Bone> spelling is correct btw :)
[07:24] <fabbione> T-Bone: you don't have the colosseum in Paris
[07:25] <T-Bone> fabbione: right. we don't collect ruins ;)
[07:25] <fabbione> T-Bone: that's why it is still up and rocking after 2000 years....
[07:25] <fabbione> ehhe
[07:25] <fabbione> anyway let's cut the speech france <-> italy here
[07:26] <fabbione> otherwise i will get T-Bone to commit suicide for being born there
[07:26] <T-Bone> LOL
[07:26] <T-Bone> in your widest dreams... =)
[07:26] <T-Bone> +l
[07:26] <fabbione> T-Bone: ok.. listen to this story as a starter
[07:27] <fabbione> you are probably too young to remember
[07:27] <T-Bone> ?
[07:27] <fabbione> you know that Italy and France always fight for who has the best wine?
[07:27] <fabbione> it's kinda of a friendly war ...
[07:27] <fabbione> but you can smell it
[07:27] <T-Bone> fabbione: I don't. The answer is obvious. I wasn't aware there was a debate 8)
[07:28] <fabbione> well we always accused France to steal Italian wine, mix it with some local flavour and sell it with a different name
[07:28] <fabbione> France of course always negated that
[07:28] <T-Bone> berk
[07:28] <T-Bone> should some people do that in France, that's not wine they're selling :P
[07:28] <zul> local flavour would be anti-freeze
[07:29] <fabbione> all of a sudden, in Italy, they found a big amount of poison in italian wine
[07:29] <fabbione> due to some kinda of infection...
[07:29] <fabbione> probably generated by some chemical shit
[07:29] <T-Bone> fabbione: it is obvious some producers sell something that should barely be called cat piss. What's even more unfortunate is that there are people buying it as "French wine" :P
[07:29] <fabbione> well.. of course we closed down the selling of wine
[07:29] <T-Bone> fabbione: no kidding?
[07:30] <fabbione> now.. how come some of the major France wine producers did the same? :)
[07:30] <fabbione> T-Bone: no i am really serious
[07:30] <fabbione> i am not kidding
[07:30] <T-Bone> wow
[07:30] <fabbione> oh as a side note
[07:30] <T-Bone> looks pretty much unbelievable to me
[07:30] <fabbione> the part of italy that was damaged
[07:30] <T-Bone> at least for the "Grands Crus"
[07:30] <fabbione> was the north-west.. close to the french border line
[07:31] <T-Bone> Piemont?
[07:31] <fabbione> now.. really *CASUALLY*
[07:31] <fabbione> all the southern-east french wine were not distributed
[07:31] <fabbione> yeah Piemonte
[07:31] <fabbione> ;)
[07:31] <T-Bone> good wine in Piemonte, that's for sure :)
[07:31] <fabbione> oh.. of course.. France did NEVER import wine from italy....
[07:31] <T-Bone> heh
[07:32] <fabbione> anyway
[07:32] <fabbione> i think it's time to go and help my wife
[07:32] <fabbione> and get some food
[07:32] <fabbione> cya tomorrow guys
[07:32] <T-Bone> fabbione: well i don't know much about that story, but the best wines in France aren't southern-east ones. Bordeaux and Bourgognes are respectively southern west and middle-east, so to speak
[07:32] <T-Bone> fabbione: heh, cya. I'm not done with you yet ;)
[07:33] <fabbione> T-Bone: well still pretty close to france :)
[07:33] <fabbione> T-Bone: next one will be italian kitchen vs french cousine
[07:33] <fabbione> :P
[07:33] <T-Bone> LOL
[07:37] <zul> french football vs italian football?
[07:38] <T-Bone> lol
[07:38] <T-Bone> i don't like football, i'd be a bad advocate :)
[07:39] <T-Bone> OTOH, french rugby vs italian rugby would prove interesting... 8)
[07:41] <zul> i dont really pay attention to rugby anymore
[07:45] <zul> fabbione: there is alot of warnings like this include/linux/skbuff.h:1017: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'csum_and_copy_from_user' differ in signedness
[07:45] <zul>  that should probably be fixed as well
[09:22] <lamont_r> WARNING! ABI check override for hppa has been detected, and there were changes!
[09:22] <lamont_r> woot!
[09:26] <T-Bone> lol
[09:27] <lamont_r> T-Bone: that means that my check changes worked....
[09:27] <T-Bone> indeed
[09:28] <lamont_r> fabbione: actually, I have another quesion about the abi check....
[09:28] <lamont_r> normal use case is going to be that the user installs the new kernel and then doesn't reboot...
[09:28] <lamont_r> hence adding symbols should mean that the new modules won't load in the old kernel, no?
[09:29] <lamont_r> :q
[09:40] <zul> wohoo...helium balloons
[09:41] <lamont_r> zul: get a real job, slacker
[09:42] <zul> i tell you i work for the government..
[09:42] <lamont_r> zactly! :0-)
[09:42] <T-Bone> lol
[09:42] <zul> however i wouldnt mind being paid to work on ubuntu full time :)
[09:43] <lamont_r> CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM committed.  I feel so dirty
[09:43] <T-Bone> lamont_r: i like you very much, you know? Especially when you're dirty ;)
[09:43] <zul> ok...take it to #ubuntuhppaorgy
[09:43] <lamont_r> what better way to find the 3rd user, eh?
[09:44] <T-Bone> lol
[09:44] <T-Bone> lamont_r: i've finished reviewing my howto, and will advertise it soon
[09:45] <lamont_r> mjg59: why does the kernel think ACPI says I have no batteries?
[09:45] <lamont_r> T-Bone: and you fixed your /boot vs / issue?
[09:45] <T-Bone> lamont_r: I can't tell. I'll tell you in next upload
[09:45] <T-Bone> s/upload/upgrade/
[09:46] <T-Bone> lamont_r: all i can say is that it doesn't work within the chroot, that's for sure
[09:46] <T-Bone> which brings us the question of "how is it supposed to work in the (yet hypothetical) installer"
[09:47] <lamont_r> grep link_in /etc/kernel-img.conf 
[09:47] <lamont_r> link_in_boot = yes
[09:47] <lamont_r> have that?
[09:47] <T-Bone> yes
[09:47] <T-Bone> link_in_boot = Yes
[09:52] <zul> hey jbailey 
[09:52] <jbailey> Heya Chuck
[09:52] <zul> how is it going?
[09:53] <T-Bone> lamont_r: is there any way to educate popcon about an http proxy?
[09:53] <lamont_r> http_proxy=?
[09:53] <jbailey> zul: Good!  I got a place. =)
[09:53] <T-Bone> lamont_r: in popularity-contest.conf?
[09:53] <lamont_r> dunno
[09:53] <T-Bone> ah
[09:53] <zul> jbailey: oh yeah wehre?
[09:53] <T-Bone> because i can't get it to work behind a proxy, you see...
[09:54] <jbailey> zul: In the plateau/
[09:55] <zul> cool
[09:55] <T-Bone> jbailey: dude, i've started reading "WYFL", it's fuckin amusing! ;)
[09:55] <T-Bone> jbailey: i'm learning a handful of useful expressions ;)
[10:03] <zul> later
[10:06] <lamont_r> WYFL?
[10:07] <T-Bone> Watch Your Fucking Language
[10:07] <T-Bone> subtitled "How to swear effectively, explained in explicit detail and enhanced by numerous examples taken from everyday life"
[10:08] <lamont_r> URL?
[10:08] <T-Bone> lamont_r: btw, seen what I said in #parisc? I wonder how bad it would be to run a debian 2.6.8 kernel on Ubuntu for the time being?
[10:08] <T-Bone> lamont_r: that's a fuckin book! ;)
[10:08] <T-Bone> lamont_r: amazon.com ;)
[10:08] <lamont_r> heh
[10:09] <lamont_r> T-Bone: probably no worse than any other.
[10:09] <T-Bone> lamont_r: ok. I guess that i'll do that then, because the j6k don't have GSP and i don't feel like going to school every 4 days or so to power cycle them
[10:09] <lamont_r> T-Bone: alternatively, figure out what we broke in 2.6.10SMP
[10:09] <T-Bone> lamont_r: btw, we're down to 2 builders until friday, since one of them died :P
[10:09] <lamont_r> xorg builds just fine on a UP kernel.
[10:10] <T-Bone> lamont_r: everything built fine
[10:10] <T-Bone> lamont_r: i'm almost certain that's the cache_grow panic that stroke
[10:10] <T-Bone> lamont_r: unfortunately that box is headless
[10:10] <lamont_r> xorg build died twice on 2.6.10-33.1-hppa64-smp
[10:10] <lamont_r> T-Bone: crossover serial cables, dude.
[10:11] <T-Bone> lamont_r: that's what's there. Except minicom isn't always running on the other end of the cable :P
[10:11] <T-Bone> lamont_r: i've been building xorg on 2.6.12 64bit smp
[10:11] <lamont_r> well, yeah
[10:14] <T-Bone> lamont_r: unfortunately, as i kept bashing on #parisc, our kernel is in a very awful state since 2.6.8.1 :(
[10:15] <lamont_r> T-Bone: modulo the "expect bug"
[10:16] <T-Bone> lamont_r: alas
[10:19] <T-Bone> lamont_r: all in all i can keep the buildd setup on the A500 to build sensitive packages, unless you manage to get the A500 in DC, and that one to build these
[10:20] <T-Bone> lamont_r: install procedure advertised on #parisc and linked on the website ;)
[10:21] <lamont_r> just in time for the abi event.  cool. :=(
[10:21] <T-Bone> who cares, they all know :)
[10:21] <lamont_r> yeah
[10:21] <T-Bone> i haven't m-l'd it yet :)
[10:22] <lamont_r> well, if you do, include the fact that -34 will have abi breakage, so they'll need to reboot after they install
[10:22] <lamont_r> (hppa, for our listeners here)
[10:22] <T-Bone> i won't m-l anything before we get the archive in the right place and -34 in it
[10:22] <T-Bone> i knew you would :)
[10:23] <T-Bone> k so ubuntu seems to behave well with debian 2.6.8.2
[10:23] <T-Bone> s/.2/-2/
[10:24] <lamont_r> coolnesss - that has all of kyle's backport of 2.6.12?
[10:24] <T-Bone> no clue
[10:25] <T-Bone> strange thing is that we have a -5 in universe, but it doesn't build. I just asked kylem about that in #parisc
[10:25] <T-Bone> lamont_r: it dies with "depmod: ELF file /build/buildd/kernel-image-2.6.8-hppa-2.6.8/install-32-smp/debian/tmp-image/lib/modules/2.6.8-1-32-smp/kernel/drivers/net/hamachi.ko not for this architecture"
[10:26] <lamont_r> T-Bone: you mean 2.6.8-2-32_2.6.8-5?
[10:26] <T-Bone> tons of messages like this
[10:26] <T-Bone> kernel-image-2.6.8-hppa_2.6.8-5
[10:26] <lamont_r> 64 vs 32 bit modutils issues
[10:26] <T-Bone> how comes we can't build it?
[10:26] <T-Bone> or should i say, how comes it builds fine in Debian?
[10:26] <T-Bone> (i suppose it does)
[10:27] <lamont_r> uname hack in the kernel returned the wrong thing the last time
[10:27] <T-Bone> huhu
[10:29] <T-Bone> gah i hate the idea of bastardizing the Ubuntu setup on the builders :P
[10:29] <T-Bone> at least if i could have installed kernel packages from universe it'd have been almost acceptable :P
[10:38] <T-Bone> lamont_r: i'll let the machine run Ubuntu with debian kernel for a while just to make sure. Seems to work fine in any case
[10:44] <T-Bone> lamont_r: i'll add some 200 more signed changes a bit later. Time for me to get some food