[08:18] bryce: the versions_current list is party outdated.. for instance libpciaccess is already synced but it shows the old version [08:22] ok [08:28] hmm, the updated chroot definitely shows 0.10.3-1 as the right version [08:28] strange [08:28] is this just out of sync with the archive? [08:29] I did an apt-get update, and then: [08:29] (mychroot)root@blackwold:/# apt-cache madison libpciaccess [08:29] libpciaccess | 0.10.3-1 | http://se.archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main Sources [08:29] libpciaccess | 0.10.3-1 | http://se.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Sources [08:29] libpciaccess | 0.10.3-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Sources [08:29] libpciaccess | 0.10.5-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org experimental/main Sources [08:29] https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libpciaccess [08:29] are you using se.? [08:30] no, it's just that lp shows the new version as published [08:30] I'll change mirrors [08:30] yeah, for some reason se. doesn't have that [08:31] ok, with it set to archive.ubuntu.com: [08:31] (mychroot)root@blackwold:/# apt-cache madison libpciaccess [08:31] libpciaccess | 0.10.3-1 | http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main Sources [08:31] libpciaccess | 0.10.5-1 | http://archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Sources [08:31] libpciaccess | 0.10.3-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Sources [08:31] libpciaccess | 0.10.5-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org experimental/main Sources [08:31] yep [08:32] ok, rerunning cron. Should be updated in a few minutes. [08:32] cool, thanks [08:35] http://www2.bryceharrington.org:8080/X/PkgList/versions_current.html updated [08:35] looks good [08:36] yep [08:37] hey, would you be willing to make notes on http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/PackageNotes about the packages to be merged? [08:38] 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] sure, what was the syntax again? [08:39] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/PackageNotes?action=recall&rev=34 shows an example [08:39] ah, ok [08:39] basically bullet, package-name, and comments [08:42] 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] I put several xorg related scripts in there that might be useful [08:43] there are README.xx files for each script explaining what they do [08:44] ok, I'll have a look [08:45] tormod's given me some good feedback [08:49] 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] 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] that's nice to hear :) [08:52] 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] 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] I too was surprised at how many there were, though I can't have found all of them. [08:55] wgrant: an example? [08:57] One of them (the chelsea project) is a derivative for some FIC netbook, AFAICT. [08:58] hum, havoc pennington working on it [09:03] meeting -> [09:22] wgrant: wow, and that's one I hadn't heard about [09:24] 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] Hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised in the next year or so.. [19:51] james_w: btw I've a question I wonder if you might know the answer to... [19:51] hi bryce [19:51] how are you>? [19:52] how was Lex? [19:52] james_w: I'm doing good! glad for the short week :-) [19:52] Lex was better than I had expected it was going to be [19:52] but those guys have a huge workload. Phear [19:52] anyway, I noticed there is a +maintained-packages page for teams, which looks pretty sweet [19:52] yeah, I was there the previous week. [19:52] they were excited about you coming :-) [19:53] 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] 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] bryce, isn't that set by debian/control? [19:54] superm1: well that's what I'm wondering [19:55] 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] 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] I think it is debian/control, but I can't say for sure [19:58] do you just use the usual Maintainer: lines in debian/control for X packages? [19:58] 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] james_w: yep [19:59] yeah, as superm1 you may want to consider marking ubuntu-x-swat as the maintainer [19:59] ok, maybe something to experiment with [19:59] thanks guys [20:02] possibly I could reproduce that for X.org with some script. Hmm. [20:09] wow, this is cool: http://package-import.canonical.com/loggerhead/x/xserver-xorg-video-intel/jaunty/changes [20:47] I think I've already uploaded some package with ubuntu-x@ as the Maintainer [21:03] hmm no, but xorg/xorg-server have it in git [21:03] besides, ubuntu-x != ubuntu-x-swat, so they probably won't show on the list [22:25] 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] 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] tjaalton: yeah ubuntu-x appears to be some random guy [22:36] superm1: btw I've sent off another 5 bugs to AMD. fglrx-installer is pretty thoroughly triaged now [22:36] bryce, great. so now just a matter of waiting for them to start fixing them :) [22:37] superm1: indeed [22:38] superm1: you might want to look into bug 291672, which seems to be a packaging issue [22:38] Launchpad bug 291672 in fglrx-installer ""Proprietary Drivers" shows incorrect version if installed fglrx manually" [Wishlist,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/291672 [22:39] 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] otherwise, if you think it's not worth doing, please go ahead and wontfix [22:40] that bug is unbelievably hard to comprehend [22:40] yep [22:41] 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] jockey doesn't show versions though... [22:42] i think that's right though. the thing is the one on AMD's website didn't support intrepid anyway [22:43] ok, I may have misinterpreted his explanation [22:43] yeah i think marking that won't fix is sane [23:05] superm1: The archive admins can copy things between suites. [23:06] 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] normal SRU rules apply now [23:07] yep. [23:24] superm1: Is this about your g-s-d patch that got committed overnight? [23:24] yeah [23:24] i've just gotten it tested and backported to 2.24 [23:28] wgrant, ^ [23:31] superm1: I see they're about to release 2.24.1. I wonder if there's anything else we might want. [23:32] wgrant, you mean for an SRU? [23:33] is there a schedule posted for 2.24.1?, does it basically reflect trunk, or is 2.26 work already in trunk? [23:36] 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] wgrant, so i'm guessing my patch is only in trunk then.. should ask upstream to put it in 2.24.1? [23:37] Oh. [23:37] 2.24.1 was tagged literally 3 minutes ago. [23:37] So you're too late. [23:38] oh well