[09:25] <tseliot> tjaalton: I have completed the DKMS part for the nvidia driver (for our new package)
[09:25] <tseliot> I'm uploading the source
[09:25] <tseliot> to my webspace
[09:29] <tjaalton> tseliot: did you use my debdiff as a base?
[09:31] <tseliot> tjaalton: yes, of course
[09:31] <tjaalton> cool
[09:31] <tseliot> I'm working with you, not against you ;)
[09:32] <tjaalton> just to make sure ;)
[09:32] <tseliot> I'm reuploading the original too, just to be sure
[09:33] <tjaalton> could you make a debdiff against my version?
[09:33] <tseliot> sure
[09:33] <tjaalton> or any (unified) diff
[09:34] <tseliot> your debdiff was nvidia-split.debdiff, right?
[09:34] <tjaalton> yes
[09:43] <tseliot> tjaalton: here's the debdiff: http://www.albertomilone.com/ubuntu/newlrm/nvidia-dkms.debdiff
[09:44] <tseliot> Here are the files: http://www.albertomilone.com/ubuntu/newlrm/nvidia-graphics-drivers_169.12.orig.tar.gz
[09:45] <tseliot> ﻿http://www.albertomilone.com/ubuntu/newlrm/nvidia-graphics-drivers_169.12-4ubuntu2.diff.gz
[09:45] <tseliot> ﻿﻿http://www.albertomilone.com/ubuntu/newlrm/nvidia-graphics-drivers_169.12-4ubuntu2.dsc
[09:45] <tseliot> ﻿﻿﻿http://www.albertomilone.com/ubuntu/newlrm/nvidia-graphics-drivers_169.12-4ubuntu2_source.changes
[09:48] <tjaalton> why have you removed files that doesn't matter being there (debian.binary)? it only makes the diff large
[09:51] <tjaalton> *don't
[09:54] <tjaalton> seems like the diff'ed target was unclean, since it had nvidia-kernel/
[09:54] <tseliot> ok, let me do it again
[09:55] <tjaalton> but there were a bunch of files you've removed by hand. it should be enough to comment stuff out from rules
[09:55] <tjaalton> makes it a lot easier to merge in the future
[09:55] <tseliot> ok
[09:56] <tjaalton> see, I'm saving your time ;)
[09:57] <tseliot> it looks like I did a debclean before doing the debdiff
[09:57] <tseliot> can you get the source from my website?
[09:58] <tjaalton> hmm don't bump the version since no version has been uploaded
[09:58] <tjaalton> but yes, I'll get it
[09:59] <tseliot> ﻿tjaalton: doing a debdiff with the same version is not possible ;)
[09:59] <tjaalton> diff -Naur is fine too
[09:59] <tseliot> next time I'll just do a diff
[10:00] <tjaalton> umm, did you change the tarball?
[10:01] <tjaalton> at least the size differs, so it's not built with the tarball from debian
[10:01] <tseliot> ﻿tjaalton: honestly, I don't remember the reason why I did it. I'm working on a lot of things and my memory sucks
[10:02] <tseliot> ﻿tjaalton: I think I have just regenerated the orig, the code is the same
[10:03] <tjaalton> you can't touch the tarball :/
[10:03] <tseliot> i.e. Debian's + yours
[10:05] <tjaalton> I can't extract the package
[10:05] <tseliot> I'll reupload the diff done with the original orig file
[10:05] <tjaalton> because the tarball is not the same as in debian
[10:05] <tjaalton> cool
[10:06] <tseliot> try now. If it doesn't work I'll download the orig from debian again
[10:07] <tseliot> the links to the files are the same in my webspace
[10:08] <tjaalton> yep, worked this time
[10:08] <tseliot> ok, great
[10:10] <tjaalton> yeah, diff is much better
[10:11] <tseliot> I had to recreate the orig for the lrm-envy, maybe this confused me a bit, I don't know... ;)
[10:13] <tjaalton> you modified the copyright?
[10:13] <tjaalton> the ftp url
[10:13] <tseliot> in which file?
[10:13] <tjaalton> debian/copyright
[10:14] <tseliot> no, I guess not
[10:14] <tseliot> why should I have done such a thing?
[10:14] <tjaalton> -ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86_64/169.12/NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-169.12-pkg2.run
[10:14] <tjaalton> +ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/169.12/NVIDIA-Linux-x86-169.12-pkg0.run
[10:14] <tjaalton> you tell me :)
[10:14] <tjaalton> the same change (pkg2->pkg0) is in several other files
[10:15] <tseliot> pkg2 is for 64bit while pkg0 is for 32bit
[10:15] <tjaalton> maybe that's generated
[10:15] <tseliot> furthermore that file is generated from the .in
[10:15] <tjaalton> right, so no problem there
[10:16] <tjaalton> actually, lrm had pkg1 & pkg2.. wonder what's the difference between pkg0 & pkg1
[10:17] <tseliot> pkg0 doesn't contain the pre-built modules
[10:17] <tseliot> for SUSE, Redhat, etc.
[10:17] <tseliot> therefore it's smaller
[10:17] <tjaalton> ok, so it was a "bug" in lrm
[10:18] <tseliot> yes, it wasted our bandwidth
[10:20] <tseliot> pkg0 9.7MB, pkg1 16.8MB :-)
[10:20] <tjaalton> yep
[10:21] <tjaalton> you removed n-k-s.NEWS? although it's useless, it shouldn't matter being there and making the diff smaller
[10:22] <tseliot> I guess I did it. You can put it back
[10:23] <tjaalton> ok, so I'll merge the rest, and then change the epoch etc. Then testing on hardy
[10:24] <tseliot> the driver won't be loaded in hardy though. Maybe remove the lrm first
[10:25] <tjaalton> I know it won't be, but it should work there
[10:31] <tjaalton> does lrm-common conflict with the new package?
[10:31] <tjaalton> functionally
[10:32] <tseliot> it should
[10:32] <tseliot> and we should get rid of lrm-common anyway
[10:32] <tjaalton> it's not a problem with the new lrm that'll get in intrepid
[10:32] <tjaalton> probably won't exist there
[10:33] <tseliot> but of course it will be a problem if we decide to backport the driver to hardy
[10:34] <tjaalton> nope
[10:34] <tjaalton> won't happen
[10:35] <tseliot> which one won't happen? The problem or the backport?
[10:35] <tjaalton> backport
[10:35] <tseliot> ok, then
[10:36] <tseliot> and users will get the updated drivers through envyng therefore no backport will be needed ;)
[10:37] <tjaalton> right, I won't take the risk of updating lrm
[10:38] <tseliot> ok, then
[15:28] <superm1> tseliot, tjaalton haven't talked to you for a bit, so i wanted to see where you were at w/ dkms support on the nvidia packages?
[15:36] <tseliot> superm1: this morning I gave tjaalton the part about dkms. However we have yet to work on the control file and on the diversions
[15:36] <superm1> so likely this stuff won't be ready for intrepid alpha 1 :(
[15:43] <tseliot> ﻿superm1: do you need the nvidia driver?
[15:54] <superm1> tseliot, i was going to do some initial testing on intrepid for some next generation laptops once the alpha came out
[15:54] <superm1> and some of them contain nvidia, so this seemed appropriate to test at the same time
[16:00] <tseliot> ﻿superm1: ok, I'll see what I can do to speed up this process. What's the deadline for the 1st alpha of Intrepid?
[16:18] <tjaalton> tseliot: you can continue working on the version you gave me (including my comments). I didn't have time to merge it with my tree today, but maybe I can do some testing tomorrow
[16:19] <tseliot> ﻿tjaalton: ok ;)
[18:37] <jcristau> it should be possible to sync libx11 now
[20:27] <mnemo> in what ubuntu package does the /usr/lib/dri/i965_dri.so file ship?
[20:29] <jcristau> libgl1-mesa-dri
[20:30] <jcristau> packages.ubuntu.com would have told you that i think
[20:30] <tjaalton> dpkg -S foo will tell, or dlocate
[20:30] <tjaalton> phew, my vdr box decided to overheat right in the middle of an upgrade
[20:30] <mnemo> excellent thanks... give a man a fish, heh ;)
[20:31] <tjaalton> no keyboard/monitor.. the kernel booted fine though
[20:35] <tjaalton> gotta love the robustness of dpkg/apt..
[20:36] <bryce> heya
[20:37] <tjaalton> hi
[20:38] <bryce> I added a notes field to http://people.ubuntu.com/~bryce/Xorg/versions_current.html
[20:39] <bryce> it can be edited at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/PackageNotes
[20:39] <tjaalton> yep, I saw that, it's useful
[20:40] <tjaalton> libx11 could be synced, as jcristau pointed out
[20:41]  * bryce nods
[20:41] <bryce> I'll go ahead and put a request in for it; I was wondering about that
[20:41] <tjaalton> and, blech.. v4l needs an epoch to be able to sync it
[20:42] <jcristau> oh?
[20:42] <tjaalton> should be the last one <knocksonwood>
[20:42] <jcristau> sigh
[20:44] <tjaalton> yeah, it was there from the first release
[20:45] <tjaalton> which is a bit silly