[07:53] tjaalton: I just got a similar bugreport for the nvidia-common issue as you reported yesterday [07:54] mvo: I'll reinstall the sucker soonish, so if you want me to backup something before that happens, let me know [07:55] I got a Lenovo Ideapad S10e to play with :) [07:55] tjaalton: oh, cool! [07:55] tjaalton: how is the keyboard :) ? [07:55] the task is to install jaunty on it [07:55] mvo: haven't touched it yet :) [07:55] tjaalton: I looked at the specs and it seems to be pretty cool, but so far the keyboard kept me from the netbooks [07:55] aha [07:55] let me know :) [07:57] the keys are flat, which is different from the X61 I'm used to, and the spacing is naturally smaller [08:08] tjaalton: for the nvidia-common issue, I assume that "dpkg -l nvidia-common" shows ii ? [08:08] hey tseliot [08:08] mvo: yep [08:09] tjaalton: and grep nvidia /var/cache/debconf/template.dat is empty? [08:09] hey mvo :-) [08:09] mvo: templates.dat, yeah, empty [08:11] tjaalton: thanks, that explains the error, lets see why it happens [08:11] * mvo is *so* annoyed by uploads that do not respect vcs-bzr like the recent nvidia-common one [08:12] tseliot: I merge the last upload into bzr if you don't mind and see if I can find out why some people get http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/136835/ [08:13] mvo: someone suggested that it might be due to a corrupt debconf database, and that colin already fixed it [08:15] tjaalton: oh, is there a bugnumber reference or something? [08:17] mvo: ok, thanks, I'll merge it with the main branch [08:17] bug #347648; is this related to a new install? [08:17] Launchpad bug 347648 in debconf "Jaunty oem installer doesn't get run after reboot" [Critical,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/347648 [08:17] (that bug should only affect recent installs from alternate) [08:18] slangasek: yes, this one was a new install from Monday [08:18] ok, then that's the debconf bug above [08:19] slangasek: just confirmed from the other report, install from today [08:19] (but maybe with a slightly outdated CD [09:18] mvo: I have just merged from your branch. What's the bug report for that problem? [09:20] ah, it was fixed by colin [09:20] in debconf [09:20] ok [09:24] thanks tseliot [09:24] np [09:40] seb128: do you mind if I take care of bug 346964? [09:40] Launchpad bug 346964 in gnome-panel "menu items selected from screen 1 open on screen 0" [Low,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/346964 [09:40] tseliot: not at all, thank you [09:40] ok :-) [09:40] I've no multi screen config to try that this week anyway [09:41] I do, and it's very annoying [09:41] the nautilus bug fix can give a clue about what sort of change is required [09:42] yes, I'm looking at the upstream patch now === seb128_ is now known as seb128 [10:25] so presumably the no-backwards-time-here! xorg core will land after beta? [10:34] Ng: yep [10:34] fair enough :) [10:35] at least I haven't heard otherwise [10:42] looks like I was mistaken anyway, I thought the patch had been applied, but the discussions are still continuing [10:49] Ng: it has been uploaded it's just in the queue due to beta freeze [10:49] ah :) [15:54] I've milestoned bug #348428 for jaunty [15:54] Launchpad bug 348428 in gdm "Swithing to another user and then to anything else, freezes laptop. Jaunty" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/348428 [15:55] that seems to be the bug I'm running into when I switch users since jaunty [15:55] which made me stop using the guest account feature for testing ;-) [15:55] the log has [15:55] ""exaCopyDirty: Pending damage region empty! [15:55] *** glibc detected *** /usr/bin/X: double free or corruption (out): 0x0d73de98 *** [15:55] ======= Backtrace: ========= [15:55] /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6[0xb7ba8604] [15:55] /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(cfree+0x96)[0xb7baa5b6]" [15:55] /usr/lib/libdrm_intel.so.1[0xb77e6837]" [15:55] I reassigned to libdrm_intel because it seems to be due to it [15:56] let me know if that's the wrong component or if you need extra details [15:56] it's probably the wrong place [15:56] since that's just where the corruption shows up [15:59] ok [15:59] what would be the best guess?