[16:45] <leleobhz> http://www.mail-archive.com/ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com/msg04922.html
[16:45] <leleobhz> im getting a error like this when i try to compile intrepid lattest kernel on hardy
[16:47] <smb_tp> leleobhz, The quickest way would be to increase the abi number in debian/changelog
[16:47] <rtg> leleobhz: the contents of the git repo aren't always buildable.
[16:48] <leleobhz> i dont get it from git rtg 
[16:48] <leleobhz> ive got this from packages.ubuntu
[16:48] <leleobhz> 2.6.26-5.18 <--- is ok? previous is 5.17
[16:49] <smb_tp> leleobhz, no abi number is the one before. so 2.6.26-6.17
[16:50] <leleobhz> really
[16:50] <leleobhz> smb_tp: thanks
[16:51] <BenC> leleobhz: this is all documented on the kernel team wiki
[16:58] <leleobhz> my X session has crashed
[16:59] <leleobhz> someone can rewrite what comes after smb_tp said to me?
[16:59] <smb_tp> Just BenC: leleobhz: this is all documented on the kernel team wiki
[17:00] <leleobhz> oh, ok.
[18:16] <BenC> smb_tp: Can you look into bug #257293 please
[18:16] <BenC> smb_tp: possible SRU for hardy
[18:16] <BenC> smb_tp: filed by AMD
[18:21] <rtg> BenC: 2.6.27-1-server sure works better no my dual quad-core then 2.6.24-19
[18:23] <BenC> rtg: No comparison to 2.6.26-5?
[18:24] <rtg> BenC: no ethernet in 2.6.26-5
[18:25] <smb_tp> BenC, Ok, I'll have a look
[18:26] <rtg> smb_tp: you've already started on it. it was the patch from AMD on the mailing list (Monday?)
[18:27] <smb_tp> rtg, I was about to look it up. But if I am on it, let me see
[18:28] <smb_tp> rtg, BenC: hm ok, might the the one from the mailing list but there would probably be not difference between different ram sizes...
[18:29] <smb_tp> oh reading further down it is
[18:30] <smb_tp> ok, already got a test kernel for hardy for this one
[18:34] <smb_tp> BenC, for Intrepid and this I got a question. Would you prefer cleanup patches from upstream to be included or rather the patch kept minimal?
[20:47] <BenC> smb_tp: Your call
[20:48] <smb_tp> BenC, Ok, Then I'd go for getting the cleanup patches as well. Keeps Intrepid closer to upstream
[20:51] <BenC> smb_tp: Is the patch for intrepid already in 2.6.27?
[20:53] <smb_tp> BenC, all patches are upstream. Wait a sec I check when it got in
[20:54] <BenC> smb_tp: If so, I'd skip it for now
[20:54] <smb_tp> BenC, got in between 26-rc5 and 27-rc1
[20:55] <BenC> smb_tp: Ok, skip it for intrepid then
[20:56] <smb_tp> BenC, Ok, will mark it as won't-fix with a comment for intrepid in bug bug
[20:56] <smb_tp> Or better fix released
[20:58] <BenC> smb_tp: No, we will fix it...mark it for Alpha5 as in-progress
[20:58] <smb_tp> ok
[21:59] <infinity> BenC: You around?
[22:00] <BenC> infinity: yeah
[22:02] <infinity> BenC: I assume you have your finger on the pulse of kernel bugs slightly more than I do.  Was curious if we were (A) aware of the "r8169 occasionally drops media for no good reason" bug, (B) knew that it appears to be fixed upstream in (handwavy) 2.6.26ish, and (C) had any plans to fix it in hardy? :)
[22:03] <infinity> BenC: (It keeps knocking my co-lo machine off the interwebs, so I'm keen to get it fixed, but wasn't about to go hunting for patches to backport if the work had been or was being done)
[22:04] <leleobhz> someone can help-me with pexpect.sendline?
[22:27] <BenC> infinity: Wasn't aware, but I'd shoot an email to smb to see if he can look at an SRU for hardy
[22:29] <smb_tp> infinity, Is that the stock kernel driver or from the backports-modules? Quite a few drivers there are covered by compat-wireless
[22:29] <infinity> smb_tp: It's not wireless, it's realtek's GigE driver.
[22:30] <infinity> smb_tp: And, fair point on the backports-modules.  If there's a backport fix there, I'll be happy.  Didn't think to look.
[22:30] <smb_tp> infinity, Oh, sorry then r# drivers always make me think of wireless
[22:31] <smb_tp> infinity, Not sure if there is something, but if you drop me an email, so I don't forget...
[22:32] <infinity> smb_tp: Now that I know who to bug, I'll bring it up with you when I have more time.
[22:32] <infinity> smb_tp: (Or, at least mail you when I have the time to lay down more coherent thought)
[22:33] <smb_tp> infinity, ok, cool
[23:52] <soren> I have a server that seems to not want to boot 2.6.24-19-server. It's currently running 2.6.24-17-server. Are there any known regressions in 2.6.24-19? It's a remote server, so I can't see any error messages that I can use to search on launchpad.