[08:18] <tjaalton> bryce: the versions_current list is party outdated.. for instance libpciaccess is already synced but it shows the old version
[08:22] <bryce> ok
[08:28] <bryce> hmm, the updated chroot definitely shows 0.10.3-1 as the right version
[08:28] <tjaalton> strange
[08:28] <bryce> is this just out of sync with the archive?
[08:29] <bryce> I did an apt-get update, and then:
[08:29] <bryce> (mychroot)root@blackwold:/# apt-cache madison libpciaccess
[08:29] <bryce> libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://se.archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main Sources
[08:29] <bryce> libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://se.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Sources
[08:29] <bryce> libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Sources
[08:29] <bryce> libpciaccess |   0.10.5-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org experimental/main Sources
[08:29] <tjaalton> https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libpciaccess
[08:29] <bryce> are you using se.?
[08:30] <tjaalton> no, it's just that lp shows the new version as published
[08:30] <bryce> I'll change mirrors
[08:30] <tjaalton> yeah, for some reason se. doesn't have that
[08:31] <bryce> ok, with it set to archive.ubuntu.com:
[08:31] <bryce> (mychroot)root@blackwold:/# apt-cache madison libpciaccess
[08:31] <bryce> libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main Sources
[08:31] <bryce> libpciaccess |   0.10.5-1 | http://archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Sources
[08:31] <bryce> libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Sources
[08:31] <bryce> libpciaccess |   0.10.5-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org experimental/main Sources
[08:31] <tjaalton> yep
[08:32] <bryce> ok, rerunning  cron.  Should be updated in a few minutes.
[08:32] <tjaalton> cool, thanks
[08:35] <bryce> http://www2.bryceharrington.org:8080/X/PkgList/versions_current.html updated
[08:35] <tjaalton> looks good
[08:36] <bryce> yep
[08:37] <bryce> hey, would you be willing to make notes on http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/PackageNotes about the packages to be merged?
[08:38] <bryce> I don't know if I'm going to have very much time to assist with merges, but if I do I'll follow directions on that page if they're there
[08:39] <tjaalton> sure, what was the syntax again?
[08:39] <bryce> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/PackageNotes?action=recall&rev=34 shows an example
[08:39] <tjaalton> ah, ok
[08:39] <bryce> basically bullet, package-name, and comments
[08:42] <bryce> tjaalton: oh btw, I've been putting some stuff into https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~xorg-edgers/xorg-server/xorg-pkg-tools lately
[08:43] <bryce> I put several xorg related scripts in there that might be useful
[08:43] <bryce> there are README.xx files for each script explaining what they do
[08:44] <tjaalton> ok, I'll have a look
[08:45] <bryce> tormod's given me some good feedback
[08:49] <bryce> tjaalton: dunno if I mentioned this already, but I spent last week visiting the OEM team, who are the guys that take care of making Ubuntu run on hardware that's shipped with Ubuntu pre-installed on it
[08:49] <bryce> it's rather stunning how many projects are under way with pre-installs.  Dell is of course the biggie, but there's a number of other companies too
[08:50] <tjaalton> that's nice to hear :)
[08:52] <bryce> yep.  It was nice to see that most of the Xorg issues they see are just weird corner cases, like issues relating to the Poulsbo driver, or multi-touch support, or similar unusualities.
[08:53] <bryce> it's interesting that almost all of these systems are based on Hardy
[08:55]  * wgrant was able to discover some details about several nice private OEM projects on LP a couple of weeks ago.
[08:55] <wgrant> I too was surprised at how many there were, though I can't have found all of them.
[08:55] <tjaalton> wgrant: an example?
[08:57] <wgrant> One of them (the chelsea project) is a derivative for some FIC netbook, AFAICT.
[08:58] <tjaalton> hum, havoc pennington working on it
[09:03] <tjaalton> meeting ->
[09:22] <bryce> wgrant: wow, and that's one I hadn't heard about
[09:24] <bryce> obviously I can't say much on specifics, but the Ubuntu people there were extraordinarily overtaxed by the number of projects.  I'm a little worried that my time's going to be even more sucked up by that than previously 
[09:31] <wgrant> Hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised in the next year or so..
[19:51] <bryce> james_w: btw I've a question I wonder if you might know the answer to...
[19:51] <james_w> hi bryce
[19:51] <james_w> how are you>?
[19:52] <james_w> how was Lex?
[19:52] <bryce> james_w: I'm doing good!  glad for the short week :-)
[19:52] <bryce> Lex was better than I had expected it was going to be
[19:52] <bryce> but those guys have a huge workload.  Phear
[19:52] <bryce> anyway, I noticed there is a +maintained-packages page for teams, which looks pretty sweet
[19:52] <james_w> yeah, I was there the previous week.
[19:52] <james_w> they were excited about you coming :-)
[19:53] <bryce> however in looking at the -intel driver, it's maintained by ubuntu-dev, which seems to maintain most everything in ubuntu.  ;-)  And that page has too many packages to be of use
[19:54] <bryce> james_w: I was wondering if you knew how it is set which team maintains a given package, and if that can be changed?
[19:54] <superm1> bryce, isn't that set by debian/control?
[19:54] <bryce> superm1: well that's what I'm wondering
[19:55] <bryce> james_w: heh, yeah they were enthusiastic on the day I arrived.  Took me by surprise...  yeah I've been putting a lot of time towards helping them on issues in recent months
[19:56] <bryce> https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-dev/+maintained-packages   <-- I'd like this info to be available filtered to just X here --> https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-x-swat/+maintained-packages
[19:57] <james_w> I think it is debian/control, but I can't say for sure
[19:58] <james_w> do you just use the usual Maintainer: lines in debian/control for X packages?
[19:58] <superm1> bryce, even if that's not the way that controls what shows up on the page (debian/control), it would be worthwhile setting it's maintainer in debian/control to ubuntu-x-swat anyway i think. 
[19:58] <bryce> james_w: yep
[19:59] <james_w> yeah, as superm1 you may want to consider marking ubuntu-x-swat as the maintainer
[19:59] <bryce> ok, maybe something to experiment with
[19:59] <bryce> thanks guys
[20:02] <bryce> possibly I could reproduce that for X.org with some script.  Hmm.
[20:09] <bryce> wow, this is cool:  http://package-import.canonical.com/loggerhead/x/xserver-xorg-video-intel/jaunty/changes
[20:47] <tjaalton> I think I've already uploaded some package with ubuntu-x@ as the Maintainer
[21:03] <tjaalton> hmm no, but xorg/xorg-server have it in git
[21:03] <tjaalton> besides, ubuntu-x != ubuntu-x-swat, so they probably won't show on the list
[22:25] <superm1> wgrant, when you uploaded gsd, it looks like the exact same version ended up in intrepid-proposed and jaunty release.  how did you do that?  two separate uploads, or ask an archive admin to pocket copy?
[22:26] <superm1> i ask because i was just going to upload the final resolution for that eject bug, and got confused on how you did that
[22:35] <bryce> tjaalton: yeah ubuntu-x appears to be some random guy
[22:36] <bryce> superm1: btw I've sent off another 5 bugs to AMD.  fglrx-installer is pretty thoroughly triaged now
[22:36] <superm1> bryce, great. so now just a matter of waiting for them to start fixing them :)
[22:37] <bryce> superm1: indeed
[22:38] <bryce> superm1: you might want to look into bug 291672, which seems to be a packaging issue
[22:39] <bryce> superm1: I almost wontfix'd it, but figured if there's a way to detect a non-stock install, it could be worth including.  Maybe tseliot could take a crack at it.
[22:40] <bryce> otherwise, if you think it's not worth doing, please go ahead and wontfix
[22:40] <superm1> that bug is unbelievably hard to comprehend
[22:40] <bryce> yep
[22:41] <bryce> what I'm interpreting is that he downloaded fglrx off of AMD's site and installed it, and now finds that Jockey is not displaying the correct installed version
[22:41] <superm1> jockey doesn't show versions though...
[22:42] <superm1> i think that's right though.  the thing is the one on AMD's website didn't support intrepid anyway
[22:43] <bryce> ok, I may have misinterpreted his explanation
[22:43] <superm1> yeah i think marking that won't fix is sane
[23:05] <wgrant> superm1: The archive admins can copy things between suites.
[23:06] <superm1> wgrant, yeah i just had a quick chat with cjwatson about it.  it was just because the archive wasn't properly opened yet
[23:06] <superm1> normal SRU rules apply now
[23:07] <wgrant> yep.
[23:24] <wgrant> superm1: Is this about your g-s-d patch that got committed overnight?
[23:24] <superm1> yeah
[23:24] <superm1> i've just gotten it tested and backported to 2.24
[23:28] <superm1> wgrant, ^
[23:31] <wgrant> superm1: I see they're about to release 2.24.1. I wonder if there's anything else we might want.
[23:32] <superm1> wgrant, you mean for an SRU?
[23:33] <superm1> is there a schedule posted for 2.24.1?, does it basically reflect trunk, or is 2.26 work already in trunk?
[23:36] <wgrant> superm1: It was branched ages ago and had some stuff (like my patch) backported.
[23:36]  * wgrant checks logs for other interesting stuff.
[23:37] <superm1> wgrant, so i'm guessing my patch is only in trunk then.. should ask upstream to put it in 2.24.1?
[23:37] <wgrant> Oh.
[23:37] <wgrant> 2.24.1 was tagged literally 3 minutes ago.
[23:37] <wgrant> So you're too late.
[23:38] <superm1> oh well