[07:13] <ara> morning :-)
[09:32] <davmor2> Morning everybody
[09:34] <ara> hey davmor2!
[09:54] <ara> morning schwuk
[09:54] <schwuk> Hi ara
[10:03] <davmor2> schwuk: Morning Dude
[10:12]  * ara reboots
[10:15] <schwuk> davmor2: how goes it?
[10:15] <davmor2> Fine thanks you
[11:47] <davmor2> is anyone else having issues with alternate jaunty?
[12:38] <asac> hi. bug 316452 is fixed. so you can verify this in your upgrade tests once the bits are built and published. Thanks!
[14:11] <BUGabundo_work> major bug with yesterday daily installer
[14:12] <BUGabundo_work> I choose a swap,  plus the rest of the disc for / with ext4
[14:12] <BUGabundo_work> and the installer replaces that schema with a 8gibs / ext3 and the rest of the disc etx3 /home
[14:14] <ara> BUGabundo_work: have you reported it¿
[14:14] <BUGabundo_work> ara: just found it!
[14:14] <BUGabundo_work> trying to make a new install to test ext4
[14:14] <BUGabundo_work> can't proceed!
[14:14] <BUGabundo_work> it won't let me choose my partition schema!
[14:14] <BUGabundo_work> lol
[14:15] <BUGabundo_work> it insists in lableling them aas ext3 and making one for /home
[14:15] <BUGabundo_work> even when I just want one partition for the all disc and /
[14:15] <BUGabundo_work> guess I'll need to go to the console!
[14:20] <BUGabundo_work> ara: any tips on how to make the partitions and force the installer to accept them?
[14:22] <BUGabundo_work> plus gparted still doesn't support ext4
[14:22] <BUGabundo_work> bah!
[14:23] <BUGabundo_work> what was the command to make a partition with ext4?
[14:23] <ara> BUGabundo_work: have you pinged cjwatson? he might now something more about it
[14:23] <davmor2> BUGabundo_work: you can use cfdisk
[14:24] <davmor2> or fdisk
[15:13] <sbeattie> BUGabundo_work: mkfs.ext4 is probably what you want.
[15:18] <BUGabundo_work> I have
[15:19] <BUGabundo_work> sbeattie: I've discussed with him on #you-dev
[15:19] <BUGabundo_work> *#u-dev
[15:21] <sbeattie> BUGabundo_work: I see. but if you manually want to set up an ext4 partition, use any of the partition managers to create it, and then mkfs.ext4 should let you partition it as ext4; though that probably will be difficult to get a / on ext4.
[15:22] <BUGabundo_work> sbeattie: why?
[15:22] <sbeattie> why what?
[15:22] <BUGabundo_work> why won't / run on ext4 ?
[15:24] <sbeattie> just the approach of manually formatting / as ext4 might be difficult, you'd be playing games underneath the installer and it might not like that. mkfs.ext4 will wipe out any existing data on the disk... though I don't know if there's a way to go from ext3 -> ext4 like there is for ext2 -> ext3
[15:25] <BUGabundo_work> the disk is to be formated!
[15:28] <sbeattie> right, but if you do it after the installer thinks its done formatting and has starting to write data to the partition, things will likely break.
[15:29] <sbeattie> s/starting/started/
[17:45] <sbeattie> davmor2: I'm testing a fix for the iso downloader, but testing it involves updating my cache of isos, so it'll be a few minutes.
[17:45] <davmor2> sbeattie: to speed it up you could go for --only xubuntu it's the one causing the problem this time
[17:46] <davmor2> stops on 64bit
[17:46] <davmor2> live
[17:46] <sbeattie> yeah, I don't have a recent xubuntu image, so that'd be a slow testcase for me.
[17:46] <sbeattie> is it failing because the MD5SUMs doesn't exist?
[17:47] <davmor2> no 64 live failed to build so I don't know if the md5sum listed it but the image wasn't there or what
[17:57] <sbeattie> davmor2: okay, I think I have a fix in place.
[17:58] <sbeattie> rev 52
[17:58] <bdmurray> sbeattie: so you couldn't recreate the original bug in bug 204133?
[17:58] <sbeattie> no, I couldn't, but I didn't do an actual wubi install.
[17:59] <bdmurray> my last comment in the bug seems to indicate I couldn't either though
[17:59] <sbeattie> I was trying to set up a mock environment https://bugs.launchpad.net/wubi/8.04/+bug/204133/comments/21
[17:59] <bdmurray> Right, I saw that
[18:00] <bdmurray> I'll give it a go again
[18:00] <sbeattie> bdmurray: thanks.
[18:00] <bdmurray> Should I test using a 8.04.1 iso?
[18:00] <bdmurray> or just 8.04?
[18:01] <sbeattie> hum. dunno. maybe 8.04 would be a better starting point.
[18:15] <davmor2> sbeattie: bdmurray: I can have a proper look at it tomorrow and speak with xivulon (ago) who writes it
[18:21] <davmor2> I need to go I'll chat with you tomorrow
[18:25] <xivulon> bdmurray: hi
[18:25] <xivulon> davmor2 raised the flag on #204133
[18:26] <bdmurray> xivulon: what do you mean?
[18:27] <xivulon> 17:21] <davmor2> xivulon: can you have another look at https://launchpad.net/bugs/204133
[18:28] <xivulon> was this in relation to 8.04.2?
[18:28] <bdmurray> xivulon: yes, I was going to try recreating it today
[18:30] <sbeattie> xivulon: yes, 8.04.2 release is coming up on the 22nd, and we're trying to clear out any outstanding SRUs for hardy in prep for that; ntfs-3g is one of them.
[18:30] <xivulon> that bug lead to a few changes in several places and spread upon 2 versions
[18:31] <xivulon> have to look at the status of 8.04.1 since I forgot what ended up being in there
[18:31] <bdmurray> xivulon: I guess we are looking for a good way to recreate the bug.
[18:51] <xivulon> ok bdmurray, did some digging to refresh the memory
[18:51] <xivulon> in short I do not think there is any reason to upgrade ntfs
[18:52] <xivulon> because users cannot take advantage of that without an updated lupin package
[18:52] <xivulon> which would be 0.22 (0.20 is in hardy update)
[18:53] <xivulon> as for the testing (if it is required anyway), it is hard to reproduce faults due to dirty_flag
[18:54] <xivulon> mostly you try to prove that the patch does not break things
[18:55] <xivulon> which I had done at the time
[18:55] <xivulon> but again I do not think that 1:1.2216-1ubuntu3 needs to be pushed further
[18:57] <xivulon> I will ask slangasek to remove ubuntu3 from proposed
[19:08] <sbeattie> xivulon: thanks
[19:14] <xivulon> np
[22:05] <bdmurray> sbeattie: I've been unable to recreate bug 204133
[22:44] <_MMA_> Anyone test Studios AMD64 disk and have X *not* start w/nVidia? I'm burning norm Ubuntu now to see if it happens there also. Same drivers/kernel Should be the same.
[22:52] <_MMA_> slangasek: Are the Ubuntu disks being respun? If so why? And should Studios?
[22:53] <slangasek> _MMA_: Ubuntu disks are oversized until OOo toes the line.
[22:53] <_MMA_> Ahh.. OK. Saw that. 790MB.
[22:59] <_MMA_> stgrabber: Can a question (tickbox, whatever) be added to to the tracker to ask if the test was virtual or not? I've had successful tests virtually that failed on real HW and vice-versa.
[23:45] <_MMA_> Im getting a black screen while testing Ubuntu/Studio AMD64. Is this known?
[23:46] <charlie-tca> _MMA_: +1 here for xubuntu
[23:47] <_MMA_> Oh Ouch.
[23:47] <_MMA_> charlie-tca: nVidia GFX?
[23:47] <charlie-tca> no, the tickbox
[23:47] <_MMA_> Oh. hehe
[23:48]  * charlie-tca still learning to specify
[23:51] <_MMA_> slangasek: Aside from the OO.o issue, if Ubuntu is respun for any tech reason, Studio should as well. I'm have no luck with AMD64 not matter the flavor ATM.