persiatjaalton, Have you also looked at the other kernel trees?  (linux-ports, linux-lpia).  I think those would be the sources for linux-libc-dev for architectures for which the kernel isn't provided by linux.06:37
tjaaltonpersia: oh right :)06:39
tjaaltonI didn't06:39
tjaaltonanyway, the armel build should've pulled linux-libc-dev AIUI, since libc6-dev should depend on it06:48
=== smb_tp_ is now known as smb_tp
TimStarlingapw: thanks for your help yesterday13:12
TimStarlingDomas still hasn't made a showing so I just went ahead and restarted most of the 32GB servers with 3GB less target mem usage13:13
CarlFKI am getting a kernel panic in about 10 min when running some firewire cam stuff 13:35
CarlFK2.6.27-9 generic x6413:35
CarlFKI am now trying  -7 13:36
apwCarlFK, also try the -11 kernels in -proposed13:43
CarlFKwill do13:45
affluxHi! bug 51779 was about having to manually load the ircomm module and to  create some /dev/ircommX devices. The devices are now created automatically, after loading ircomm manually. Can I consider this fixed?13:56
ubot3Malone bug 51779 in linux-source-2.6.17 "IRDA-Devices are not created by default (ircomm: 161-0" [Wishlist,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/5177913:56
CarlFK-7 just paniced.  but i got -11 installed in time :)13:59
CarlFK-11 panic: up 23 min, load average: 1.33, 1.56, 1.18 Cpu0  : 82.0%us,  1.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 16.7%id,  14:11
CarlFKI bet I should pull nvidia...14:12
CarlFKwhat's the command to rebuild menu.lst?  (it adds lines for the kernels it finds in /boot)14:22
CarlFKupdate-grub lies: Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.27-11-generic ... Updating /boot/grub/menu.lst ... done http://dpaste.com/108526/14:39
Kanohi rtg , did you change some dell blacklight settings in the last kernels?15:07
Kanosomebody with dell vostro 1000 had working fn keys for backlight but then it stopped working15:07
rtgKano: apw did in Jaunty. perhaps http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/ubuntu-jaunty.git;a=commit;h=e9c7dae04d7168ce7f3b823a1d7349e2212e29fb15:08
Kanohmm i guess i revert that15:09
apwthere are a bunch of people in various tates of regession against hardy, the fixes there fixes most.  with the stack there we have been able to get all of the reporter working either automatically or diabling acpi_backlight on the command line.  a more complete fix needs to come from upstream15:12
Kanoor i just compile 4.9 kenrel again15:12
mjg59Someone just needs to figure out why i915 interrupts don't work properly15:15
=== BenC1 is now known as BenC
apwlool, would you be able to test an lpia kernel for me, the test image is in my ppa: deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/apw/ubuntu jaunty main16:13
apwas linux-lpia as 'normal'16:14
loolapw: Yup16:20
apwrtg, ok i've squashed down all the debian/* junk into one commit and pushed the new tree to zinc.  ubuntu/ubuntu-jaunty-lpia.git16:43
rtgapw: cool. thanks.16:44
apwnote there are some AUTO commits in there which are built but amits automation16:45
apwnow its all cleaned and squashed the delta is minute, four patches16:45
rtgapw: you want it packaged and uploaded?16:46
apwi'll counter with two questions:16:47
apw1) is it any use without -lum et al?16:47
apw2) should we wait for the testing smb and lool are doing16:48
rtgapw: the kernel needs to be uploaded _before_ LUM for header packages16:49
apwthere is actually only a  lrm it seems, no idea what is in it yet16:49
rtgapw: until we upload linux-lpia-meta no one automatically pulls the package.16:49
apwas its a rebase tree, a new kernel isn't the end of the world its just a bounce of the .N at the end, so if you think it looks sensible as a first step thats fine with me16:51
loolapw: I understand that the debian/ changes were not merged; if you intend to keep this tree, I guess you might want to merge the debian/ changes from ubuntu-jaunty.git into ubuntu-jaunty-lpia.git perhaps?16:57
rtglool: can't we just start with what it is? Its a 2.6.28 kernel with some UBUNTU patches applied, which _are_ represented in the changelog.16:59
loolrtg: I thought you guys wanted to minimize delta between linux and linux-lpia17:00
loolAnd I wish that too17:00
apwyeah we do, but you wanted it yesterday too17:00
loolSure, I'm not saying this is urgent17:00
loolSorry, I should have hinted this is minor17:00
rtglool: I really only care about code delta. The debian directory changes don't matter much.17:01
apwi can't see why we have a different debian directory in here really17:01
apwwe should probabally pull the differences out that matter and make them a delta on the top of the normal debian dir17:01
loolrtg: These include config changes for instance17:01
loolAll the work you've been doing on demodularizing the kernel17:02
rtgI'll get back to you. kernel IRC meeting right now17:02
apwthose of course are lpia specific so less difficilt to manage17:02
=== TimStarling is now known as Tim-away
=== asac_ is now known as asac
loolrtg: I also have decent ARM hardware (Thecus N2100 I think it's 600 MHz 512 M) but not running jaunty yet17:54
loolIf it's something blocking you, I can prioritize bringing it up17:55
rtglool: I need to get this fixed anyway since its sort of a long term issue.17:55
loolObviously porter box would be much more convenient17:55
rtgI'll just figure out qemu, I have a dual quad core.17:55
loolIt's relatively slow and segfaults a lot with lots of memory17:56
loolBut I'm glad you'll try that out, will make you have a look at the video issue :)17:56
persiaapw, So, you're the current lpia person?  Would you be able to help me understand the difference between lpia and lpiacompat?18:03
apwerm, i think thats an over simplification.  i touched it last :)18:04
persiaOK.  Last I looked, "lpia" had CONFIG_M586=y and "lpiacompat" had CONFIG_M586 is not set.  The information I received originally was that "lpia" was for A1x0 and Atom, and "lpiacompat" was for everything else.  Something seems not to match.18:05
apwpersia, but the difference as i see it is that lpia has lots of useless things turned off so is leaner18:05
persia"useless"?  Would that be why I have better device support with -generic on i386 on my Atom device than with lpia?18:05
persiaActually, ignore the second question :)18:06
apwpersia, very probabally, lots of things like ATM AppleTALK, HIPPI, IPX etc are off in that kernel18:06
persiaSo, is there any way to tell which would the better kernel to install between lpia and lpiacompat?18:07
persiaOh, those are useless :)18:07
persiaI thought maybe M586 would be the key, but it seems backwards from how I would expect it.18:07
apwthe only difference is config, and the difference there is in the git tree18:07
persiaSo when should "lpia" be installed, and when "lpiacompat"?18:08
persiaAbout 6 months ago, amitk told me that it was 586/686 as a split, but it seems to have moved.18:08
persia(or is opposite what I expected, or I misunderstand the CONFIG_M586 config option)18:09
apwi can't say i have definitive knowlege, but i would say lpia is for real devices in the field (it has 586 set), and lpiacompat might be for buildd's or something, running the same code on a normal machine18:10
persiaSo every sensible end-user device should just have "lpia" installed, and if that doesn't work, users ought file bugs?18:10
persia(noting that some users may be told "Use i386")18:11
apwpersia, that sounds reasonable to me yes18:18
persiaThanks.  That makes the necessary installer magic really simple :)  If later something (e.g. /proc/cpuinfo flags) can be used to differentiate or something, we can change to support that.18:19
rtgapw: did you use some variant of rebase-intrepid when creating the Jaunty lpia tree?18:54
apwyes, i did exactly that19:00
apwrtg, i used it to handle the auto part, then pulled the patches in by hand19:00
apwand then massaged it to fold them down19:00
rtgapw: but you didn't update the script, right? It still references Intrepid19:01
apwyes that is partly error, partly deliberate19:01
apwas to do an intrepid to jaunty conversion on has to hack it to be scitofrenic19:01
apwso a new rebase-jaunty needs to be in there, but i've not had a chance to test it19:02
rtgapw: ok, I'm just cleaning out some arm cruft19:02
apwcould you see if we need the -virtual thing in control while you are there19:02
rtgapw: I don't think we do. though its in the Intrepi LPIA tree, its never build 'cause it doesn't exist within the LPIA arch19:04
apwi was confused by it, but left it cause it was in intrepid too19:04
rtgapw: if you look in debian/sub-flavours/virtual.vars you can see thats its only built for arch="i386 amd64"19:06
apwrtg is there some trick to building an lrm?19:22
tjaaltonapw: the new -intel fails to build again using the kernel drm headers.. libdrm 2.4.3 has something newer that's needed.. just a heads up, can't hunt commits right now: http://pastebin.com/m3a90934c19:23
tjaalton(the new being
tjaaltonpost-alpha3 stuff anyway..19:25
apwtjaalton, ok thanks19:25
Kanohi, are there somewhere older 2.6.28 kenrels than -4.9?19:30
Kanoas deb19:32
klasikahlis kernel-package maintained by the kernel team?19:33
klasikahlthe upstream is severely broken... it produces unusable headers, for one.... see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=475036 and http://sidux.com/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-11109.html19:37
ubot3Debian bug 475036 in kernel-package "kernel-package: kernel-package is suffering from bit rot, and is severly broken" [Serious,Closed] 19:37
klasikahlanyway the version in ubuntu is likewise affected19:37
klasikahlbe back in a few... lunch19:38
klasikahlit appears the fix received hex: 1872151 according to a changelog for 11.00219:41
rtgapw: still having problems with lrm?19:47
rtgapw: jaunty lpia uploaded19:48
apwrtg, no i think i got myself sorted basically19:51
apwit needs the headers19:52
rtgapw: yeah, needs kernel headers19:52
apwrtg, so whats the rules on version matching.  i assume its supposed to be the same as the kernel 19:55
rtgapw: only the ABI has to match. the minor (uopload) number is not relevant19:56
rtgupload, even19:56
apwahh thats better19:56
rtgapw: you can look in the generated /debian/control to see what it depends on19:56
apwdoh of course19:57
Kanortg: btw. it seems the 4.9 kernel without that backlight patch works20:03
rtgapw: ^^20:03
Kanofor vostro 100020:03
Kanoi fetched the u binary20:04
Kanobecause my pbuilder failed with the source20:04
apw'that backlight patch' whats the title for that one20:04
Kanothere are not so many patches from .9 to .1020:04
apwthat one was the one smb_tp reverted i believe20:05
apwin intrepid at least, he replaced it with something else20:05
smb_tpapw, No just reverted20:06
smb_tpat least this code20:06
apwi thought you put some other change on the top, the one i reviewed, to get things working20:06
smb_tpfor the time being I just allowed acpi and vendor drivers concurrently20:06
smb_tpok, so speaking i replaced it20:07
apwthats the one i was thinking of20:07
smb_tpThe -4.9 without that patch in question will probably work mostly20:08
smb_tpjust not for T61 and Asus...20:08
Kanoyes, it did work, just not 4.1020:08
smb_tpKano, At least with Intrepid there were some happy some not20:10
Kanomaybe make an extern video override package20:12
smb_tpI guess we got a workable state for Intrepid now. For Jaunty it is more of getting the acpi driver better in upstream20:13
rtgapw: why does scripts/setlocalversion in the kernel keep adding cruft to include/config/kernel.release. i.e., 2.6.28-4-orion5x-00002-gf1820d320:14
smb_tprtg, There was a config option about local option that adds git sha's 20:15
smb_tpTrying to remember20:15
apwit does that by default if the tree isn't clean20:15
apwor something like that20:15
apwyou should never see that in the debian/build thing20:15
rtgsmb_tp: you're a genius.20:17
smb_tpI think it was if this option is set and the head is not tagged it creates that stuff20:17
rtgits been driving me nuts. keeps hosing up my armel build20:18
apwheh ... yeah its not always on20:18
rtgwell, it is inconsistently set in the jaunty tree. fixing that now20:18
apwthats very wrong...20:18
apwso waht defines the source package for a package other than the Source: line in debian/control?20:46
apwdpkg-gencontrol: error: source package has two conflicting values - lpia-linux-restricted-modules and linux-restricted-modules20:46
rtgapw: the source package name is defined in debian/changelog20:48
rtgapw: uh, maybe it needs to be the same as debian/control20:48
* apw tries that20:49
rtgapw: looks like you have the name backwards20:49
rtgshould be linux-restricted-modules-lpia20:49
apwi didn't change that20:50
apw(i don't think)20:50
rtgwhere are you getting lpia-linux-restricted-modules20:50
apwthats in control.stub.in20:50
apwso at least i am past there20:51
rtgapw: not in the intrepid version, its linux-restricted-modules-lpia20:51
apwrtg not in the one i have cloned here:20:55
apwapw@dm$ head -1 debian/control20:56
apwSource: lpia-linux-restricted-modules20:56
rtgapw: zinc.canonical.com:/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-intrepid-lpia-lrm.git ?20:56
rtgrtg@lochsa:/usr3/ubuntu/ubuntu-intrepid-lpia-lrm$ head -1 debian/control20:57
rtgSource: linux-restricted-modules-lpia20:57
rtgapw: huh, I just updated, now I have the same as you: lpia-linux-restricted-modules20:58
rtgapw:   * Change the source package name to work around Soyuz.20:59
rtgapw: Steve K has been messing with it.20:59
apwno wonder its all broken21:01
rtgapw: well, it built for Intrepid, so it shouldn't be too far off for Jaunty.21:02
calcanyone happen to know if e4defrag is in jaunty yet?21:56
calcit appeared to be part of the patchset for 2.6.28 but as its a userland tool I wasn't sure if it made it into jaunty21:58
=== Tim-away is now known as TimStarling

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!