[12:04] This *could* have been fixed prior to Dapper's release. [12:05] lots of issues /could/ have been. Resource limits are problematic. [12:06] I'm very grateful that it is supposedly fixed now, but I won't stop worrying until I can verify it for myself. [12:07] crimsun_: sure, I understand. I also understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. [12:07] So, I'm squeaking. [12:07] I'll try to squeak more quietly, thoguh. [12:08] 'though' === WebMaven goes back to patient and reflective contemplation for the next few days. [12:28] WebMaven: First reported: 2006-06-03 [12:28] two days after release [12:29] the dupes, did not contain enough info to triage the bug === JaneW [n=JaneW@dsl-146-167-152.telkomadsl.co.za] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [02:36] BenC: We build kernels for breezy-sparc because we always have? [02:37] BenC: sparc wasn't officially supported in breezy, but it was released (same as hppa and ia64, both of which built fine, BTW) [02:37] infinity: will a security update be held back because of sparc FTBFS? [02:37] not sure if we introduced anything in the last breezy update that would have caused that [02:37] BenC: If it can't be easily fixed, then I suppose not. We only support amd64/powerpc/i386 on breezy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt occasionally to make sure the others work. [02:38] no i dont think anything touched those files [02:38] BenC: Yes, it was FTBFS last time too, and I bounced you the log, you don't recall? [02:38] (You told me you'd fix it for the next update) [02:40] damn, guess I forgot :) [02:41] Looks like the last one that built successfully was 10.26 [02:41] At least, that's the last one that's in the archive. [02:41] hmm....should i try to fix it? [02:42] zul: I'd like it if someone did, but it's not the end of the world if no one does, I guess. [02:42] I just dislike dropping a security fix on the floor just because an arch is unsupported (unless it's WAY too much effort) [02:42] ill track a crack at it [02:44] Launchpad should have a resonable source history here, if you need to track back through the changes, since this was pre-git: [02:44] https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.12 [02:44] I know that 10.26 is the last version in the archive. I'll have to dig a bit to see if that was actually the last version to build correctly. [02:47] Okay, the first time I saw it fail was 10.32, since before that, Fabio was building sparc/security, not me. [02:47] So, it broke bwteen 10.26 and 10.32 (not that helpful, I know, but I imagine the nature of the breakage won't make it that hard to track down which revision was responsible) [02:52] BenC: How do you get a git tree on kernel.org? [02:53] Sleep with Linus. [02:53] (again) [02:54] I told him how to make his Mac work [02:57] That may be close enough. [02:57] mjg59: email ftp-master@ftp.kernel.org I believe [02:58] or maybe just @kernel.org === BenC forgets [02:58] You need a kernel.org address? [02:58] Uh, account [03:02] sorry i didnt realized i wasnt registered :( [03:15] mjg59: yeah, you'd get a kernel.org email, ssh account, and access to your own area(s) in the ftp tree [03:16] I'm not sure of their criteria, but I was like "hey biatch, I'm Ben Collins, give me an account foo" [03:16] and they were like "yeah dude, here ya go" [03:17] lol [03:17] well, it went something like that :) === BenC is doing a full warning-hunt on the 2.6.17 tree [03:18] we're getting way too many compiler and MODPOST (linker) warnings [03:18] and there's a lot of modules that cannot even load on smp machines, so I need to disable them [03:37] BenC: you did an upload for dapper? [03:54] yeah [03:58] cool [03:59] ill put up the diffs for breezy/hoary tomorrow morning unless if i can do the uploads myself [04:10] anyays night night [04:10] did you do anything besides the i387 for hoary? [04:10] what do you mean? [04:13] if you mean the other 3 patches that were there yes [04:14] ok, you may want bump the hoary version [04:14] yeah i did.. [04:14] because I uploaded one after you for the i386 build failure on amd64 [04:14] one more than your last one :) [04:15] linux-source-2.6.10 (2.6.10-34.19) hoary-security; urgency=low [04:17] thats wgat i have in the changelog [04:17] I did a .19 [04:17] so maybe make it .20 [04:17] ok..ill do it tomorrow morning...same for breezy? [04:18] oh and i have a couple of patches that im testing right now if they compile alright ill forward them tomorrow [04:18] toodles [04:42] BenC: You said " the dupes, did not contain enough info to triage the bug" [04:43] BenC: But the main dupe had all 'requested' info, ibncluding the information that this was still a problem in the then-current Beta. [04:44] The *only* reason my bug eventually had more info is because I kept asking "is there any other info you need" about twice a day. [04:45] And becasue I didn't accept people blaming the ralink module. [04:49] Only when another user volunteered the info that 'acpi=off' caused the network problems to go away was the problem solved. [04:52] Without that info coming to light I'd probabaly still be asking "is there any furter info you need?" at irregular intervals. [05:10] WebMaven: users were asked to try the stuff on the wiki, which included acpi=off === ajmitch [n=ajmitch@203.89.166.123] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === LordLawless [n=nunya@cm21.sigma17.maxonline.com.sg] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === LordLawless [n=nunya@cm21.sigma17.maxonline.com.sg] has left #ubuntu-kernel [] === Lure [n=lure@ubuntu/member/lure] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === Lukketto [n=Lukketto@host147-92.pool8261.interbusiness.it] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === Lure [n=lure@ubuntu/member/lure] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === doko [n=doko@dslb-088-073-091-142.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === pitti [n=pitti@ubuntu/member/pitti] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [11:25] hi [11:25] yo [11:25] BenC: the problem is that for some fucked up mind logic behind -updates [11:25] if you start using it, you will need to upload the kernel twice each time you do a security or bug fix [11:25] i personally don't care [11:26] but pitti can explain the details to you [11:26] i would prefer to keep all in one pocket for the sake of baby jesus [11:26] but you decide [11:26] ok [11:26] fabbione: it's not a fucked up logic, it's simply creating another branch we have to care for [11:27] i can do security [11:27] BenC: do you want me to rephrase something to make it look like security? [11:27] BenC: which changes do we talk about? [11:27] i am goo at that ;) [11:27] pitti: random fixes from malone [11:27] BenC: are they just some sparc bug fixes, or that sort? [11:28] BenC: safe fixes with obvious patches are fine for me for -security [11:28] no, they touch arch-indep code [11:28] BenC: and since we should not be less careful with -updates, it doesn't really matter which one we break :) [11:28] simple fixes [11:29] all i care is to get the sparc stuff in asap [11:29] i don't care how.. beacuse afaik we will need to push d-i into updates due to ogre model build system [11:31] BenC: I'd avoid branching if at all possible [11:31] BenC: so for me the question is not really -security vs. -updates, but rather whether a patch is appropriate for stable or not [11:31] so stick with -security? [11:31] yes [11:32] did we fix already all the known -security issues? [11:32] yes [11:33] hmm ok [11:33] give me 2 minutes [11:33] i will give you a USN with a fix [11:36] lol [11:36] BenC, pitti: see /msg [11:37] BenC, fabbione: we don't need to invent anything :) we didn't release the current dapper kernel yet, so just update the currently pending one [11:38] right [11:38] that would work too [11:39] BenC: i leave up to you what you prefer.. [11:39] so can you reject that and I can merge .41 back to .40 and reupload .40? [11:40] you will need .41 [11:40] sources for .40 have been accepted and processed [11:40] only the binaries are sitting in NEW [11:41] ok [11:42] i guess we will still need the ABI files... [11:42] yeah, gotta have those [11:42] yeha [11:42] infinity, Kamion, mdz and elmo are not around [11:42] our only hope is Znarl [11:43] or to start waking up people [11:43] Colin's on holiday [11:44] mjg59: yeah, that doesn't change that is not around :P [11:46] It was more "If you try to wake him up, really bad things would happen" [11:47] mjg59: yeah thanks :) i was told :) === Keybuk [n=scott@quest.netsplit.com] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === zul [n=chuck@ubuntu/member/zul] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [01:00] heylo === Lukketto [n=Lukketto@host153-89.pool871.interbusiness.it] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [02:39] BenC: i should have the updates for you by lunch time at the earliest === tuxmaniac [n=aanjhan@60.254.67.17] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === tuxmaniac [n=aanjhan@60.254.67.17] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === mgalvin [n=mgalvin@ubuntu/member/mgalvin] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [05:07] BenC: -20 is up [05:07] for hoary at least === Lure [n=lure@ubuntu/member/lure] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === tuxmaniac [n=aanjhan@60.254.67.17] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === tuxmaniac [n=aanjhan@60.254.67.17] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === bradb [n=bradb@209.217.74.66] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [06:19] Is there an updated orinoco driver that supports WPA? [06:43] fabbione,BenC: I'll accept the upload [06:44] bradb: Are there orinoco *cards* that support WPA? [06:44] hmm, that's odd, it claims it's been in the queue for 5 days? that seems unlikely [06:45] oh, different upload [06:45] fabbione,BenC: so does linux-source-2.6.17_2.6.17-1.1 need processing or no? [06:46] mdz: Yes, it does, thanks === mgalvin [n=mgalvin@ubuntu/member/mgalvin] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [07:18] cjb: Hm, good question. :) === ivoks [n=ivoks@ubuntu/member/ivoks] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === Lukketto [n=Lukketto@host153-89.pool871.interbusiness.it] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === Lukketto [n=Lukketto@host153-89.pool871.interbusiness.it] has left #ubuntu-kernel [] === ivoks [n=ivoks@ubuntu/member/ivoks] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === mgalvin_ [n=mgalvin@rrcs-24-39-194-210.nys.biz.rr.com] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [08:07] wheee...iso training is fun === mgalvin_ [n=mgalvin@rrcs-24-39-194-210.nys.biz.rr.com] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === bradb [n=bradb@209.217.74.66] has left #ubuntu-kernel ["Ex-Chat"] [08:20] mdz: are you driving .15 upload trough dapper-security NEW process? [08:22] fabbione: I was not aware that it needed driving [08:22] I thought you were talking about edgy [08:23] .15 in dapper-security needs NEW in katie. I am not sure .41 is there already [08:23] mdz: and pitti doesn't have privileges to do it [08:25] anyway i am heading off for dinner and football [08:25] c ya fabbione [08:25] mdz: if there is anything, please just text me [08:25] cya zulligno ;) [08:25] fabbione: processing it now [08:25] fabbione: done [08:25] mdz: ok cool. thanks [08:25] good luck with ghana [08:25] zul: thanks [08:25] if .41 builds the same binaries it should go right through [08:26] mdz: yes, it will and .40 accepted is fine, since it stops at amber checkpoint ;) [08:27] later guys === lloydinho [n=andreas@rosinante.egmont-kol.dk] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === Alatius [n=johan@c83-253-26-213.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [09:06] Not sure if I've come to the right place here, but I wonder, what is the difference between the 386 kernel that is default and the 686 kernel you can download? [09:06] I mean, is there different patches applied to it, different compile settings, apart from the target platform? [09:12] Alatius: 686 is tuned for 686 CPU's, while 386 will run on 486 and better (it's more generic) [09:12] also the 686 version is SMP enabled [09:14] Yeah, I tried the 686 instead, since I have a PIII, but I have an issue with the 686 kernel that I didn't have with the 386... [09:15] My computer will now not shut down itself completely, instead it stays on the message "Will now halt". With the 386 kernel it worked perfectly. [09:15] Alatius: sounds like ACPI is not working [09:15] I guess there's some issue with ACPI, yes. [09:18] But I wonder, is there any reason why the two kernels would handle it differently? [09:19] I read on the forums (right before they went offline) that I could try to start with "acpi=force lapic", but it didn't help. === allee [n=ach@allee.exgal.mpe.mpg.de] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [10:01] later === zul [n=chuck@ubuntu/member/zul] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [10:27] heylo [10:47] crimsun_: ping [10:48] zul: pong [10:48] have you seen this? http://www.kernel.org/hg/linux-2.6/?cs=c7a4c2b71aa7 [10:48] no, looking [10:49] ah, I saw that changeset, but no one complained so it wasn't backported [10:49] do we have a related bug report now? [10:50] yeah..#11149 [10:50] i was going to grab it [10:50] ok, if you want to, that's fine, else I'll queue it for this evening [10:50] ok ill will be in my tree tonight [10:51] keep an eye on the struct vs. xxx_t changes [10:53] ill send you the patch [10:54] ok, thanks. crimsun at ubuntu [10:54] ok === Lure [n=lure@ubuntu/member/lure] has joined #ubuntu-kernel === blahblah [n=tinyirc@dsl081-096-038.den1.dsl.speakeasy.net] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [11:28] can somebody answer a simple question for me regarding kernel update frequency? [11:28] blahblah: it should be soon [11:29] how regularly does it happen? daily/weekly/monthly? [11:29] I need a wireless driver and the stock installed kernel doesn't have it [11:29] what wireless driver? [11:30] broadcom, model number I forget [11:30] system is at work === [g2] [n=g2@nslu2-linux/g2] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [11:30] the bcm43xx has a native driver which works for some values of "works" [11:31] anyhow I'm just curious because I probably do'nt want to use a distro that has kernel updates quarterly or semi-annually :) [11:31] <[g2] > I think some of the OpenWRT have played with/worked on that driver [11:31] I've been using fedora on my laptop for the past two years but I want something less cutting edge [11:32] and something a bit more cohesive [11:33] well we dont do quarerly updates or semi-anual updates if that is what you are asking [11:33] well, I am asking the frequency............ [11:34] is there a repository that has testing kernels that don't make it into the main repo? [11:34] the frequency depends on the accumulation of fixes, generally. Security issues have highest priorities. [11:34] sure sure [11:34] but still, are we talking days, weeks or months in general? [11:35] well, none of us can predict the future, but weeks to month{,s} is a decent range [11:35] ok so is it safe to say that there will be a kernel update monthly-ish ? [11:35] I can live with that [11:36] crimsun_: ttp://zulinux.homelinux.net/ubuntu/kernel/patches/cs46xx.patch [11:36] I have no idea. I believe LTS wrt kernels is on the agenda at the Paris conf. [11:36] zul: danke [11:37] blahblah: if you are talking about stable (released), then monthly is probably worst case [11:37] ah good deal [11:37] blahblah: however, if you are talking about following our development cycle, I can definitely put a hurt on your b/w with kernel updates [11:37] if everything worked, I'd be happy with a stock kernel that updated rarely === BenC has no mercy in this case :) [11:38] but right now I'm using ndiswrapper w/ fedora and dapper has broken support for the wireless [11:38] which wireless card? [11:38] apparently the newer kernel versions have fixed drivers so that's what I'm hoping to get [11:38] it's some broadcom model, forget which [11:38] bcm43xx? [11:38] yeah [11:39] if it is, you can blacklist bcm43xx and use ndiswrapper just the same as you used to [11:39] ah [11:39] can you point me to a doc on how to do that? [11:39] I do'nt want to kludge my system, but if it's a clean way of doing it I'll be happy with it [11:40] is there a modules.conf or something to tell it to avoid that module? [11:40] (as root) echo blacklist bcm43xx > /etc/modutils/bcm-blacklist [11:40] ah excellent [11:40] that'll keep udev from loading it up automatically [11:40] excellent [11:41] thanks for the tip [11:41] np [11:41] adios [11:42] i think he was just looking for support === cjb [n=cjb@pool-151-203-230-202.bos.east.verizon.net] has joined #ubuntu-kernel [11:57] Hrr. My machine's been killing itself about once a week since I upgraded to the dapper release. Maybe it's the temperature or something.