[10:25] <tomreyn> hi, is there something I could do to encourage lucid backports of the current maverick kernel at https://launchpad.net/~kernel-ppa/+archive/ppa ?
[10:26] <tomreyn> (Where "I" is just a random Ubuntu user)
[10:27] <lifeless> there already is onw
[10:27] <lifeless> different ppa I think
[10:28] <lifeless> deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/kernel-ppa/ppa/ubuntu lucid main
[10:28] <lifeless> has been pretty up to date for me
[10:29] <tomreyn> lifeless: that's the same PPA, and there's not the current maverick kernel there.
[10:30] <lifeless> ah
[10:30] <lifeless> my bad, sorry
[10:30] <tomreyn> I'm looking for a version => 2.6.35-20.29 specifically
[16:30] <crimsun_> tomreyn: that I can see, tim hasn't submitted the current maverick linux for build yet
[16:57] <tomreyn> crimsun_: "tim" being the maintainer of which PPA/package?
[17:03] <crimsun_> tomreyn: tim gardner
[17:54] <tomreyn> thanks crimsun
[22:00] <KjetilK> I hope you don't mind a "user" question in this channel: I need the mantis driver which was added to mainline in 2.6.33-rc5 on my 10.04 system, and I've been looking around for a kernel to use. Currently, I've built from git, but I guess there has to be easier ways to get that.
[22:01] <KjetilK> I've looked around, and I'm a bit confused about what kernel builds would be the most stable in my situation. Mainline builds? The kernels in this PPA: https://launchpad.net/~kernel-ppa/+archive/ppa ? Any others?
[22:03] <jolan> you could backport it yourself and use DKMS
[22:04] <JanC> KjetilK: you could try the kernel packages in http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/
[22:05] <KjetilK> jolan, yeah, I suppose that's what I've done with my current solution
[22:05] <KjetilK> JanC, yeah, but what would be the best of those packages, or the https://launchpad.net/~kernel-ppa/+archive/ppa ?
[22:06] <KjetilK> they're not the same, right?
[22:07] <JanC> the "mainline" packages are mainline kernel builds using the Ubuntu kernel config, I think the other one includes additional patches
[22:10] <KjetilK> OK!
[22:11] <KjetilK> the mainline has not gone through any Ubuntu QA, I suppose? 
[22:11] <JanC> KjetilK: BTW: the 2.6.32 kernel might see a lot of backports over time, as it was selected by most distros to provide long ter msupport or enterprise releases
[22:11] <JanC> not sure if that includes your driver though
[22:11] <KjetilK> interesting, but I suppose the mantis hardware isn't amongst the most common :-)
[22:12] <KjetilK> it is used on DVB-C TV cards
[22:12] <KjetilK> it is my MythBuntu box :-)
[22:13] <JanC> hm, that doesn't sound too "enterprisey"  ;)
[22:13] <KjetilK> nope :-)
[22:14] <JanC> ah well, at least you can use a DVB-C card, over here the cable company uses proprietary encryption not supported by anybody but their own crappy hardware  :-(
[22:15] <JanC> not that I'm really affected, as I don't have a TV, but I'm sad out of principle  ;)
[22:15] <KjetilK> so, I was thinking, if I had packages that were backports of the Maverick betas, they would have had more QA, is that reasonable?
[22:17] <KjetilK> yeah, I know. I wouldn't have had a TV either if it hadn't been for Myth. But it is the same thing here, they have some crappy encryption. People have cracked it though, the legal status is somewhat complicated, but since I do not run any card-sharing or anything, I believe I am on the right side of the law
[22:19] <JanC> the encryption they use here is pretty strong AFAIK, but could be used if they allowed cardreader modules for 3rd party hardware
[22:19] <KjetilK> I was quite involved when we got DMCA style legislation, and politicians reassured us that encryption would only be protected if it was relevant to copyright, and for my personal use, it isn't. So, the question remains if the cable provider's ToS overrules the law, which the consumer ombudsman has said it doesn't
[22:19] <KjetilK> yeah, things are getting worse here too, CI+ is making stuff harder
[22:20] <JanC> well, CI+ would at least allow third party hardware  ;)
[22:20] <KjetilK> it constantly baffles the mind why they can't just make things could instead of making things crappy with strong encryption...
[22:20] <KjetilK> err, s/could/good/ 
[22:21] <JanC> CI+ provides at least some way out of lock-in into crappy hardware
[22:22] <KjetilK> yeah, that's true, but I suspect they will never give you the certificates you need to use non-crappy hardware...
[22:23] <JanC> now people have to buy a 30W box that (according to the manual) has to run 24/7, becomes slow after 1 day of operation (Java VM not being able to collect garbage?), after any important issues peopel lose their recorded stuff, etc.
[22:23] <KjetilK> yeah...
[22:23] <JanC> the stupid thing doesn't even spin down the hard disks...
[22:23] <KjetilK> heh
[22:24]  * KjetilK wants a 15W thin client to run mythfrontend in 1080i with Power over Ethernet only
[22:24] <JanC> "spinning down hard disks is bad for their lifetime"
[22:24] <KjetilK> Atom Z6xx seems capable of doing that...
[22:24] <JanC> but of course you have to replace the box every 3-4 years anyway  ;)
[22:24] <KjetilK> yeah
[22:25] <KjetilK> loosing everything every time
[22:25] <JanC> I mean, whatever if the hard disk dies after 3 years instead of 6 years if you only use it for 3 years  ;)
[22:25] <KjetilK> yeah...
[22:26] <KjetilK> mmm, back to my original question, it seems the latest mainline build for lucid is 2.6.34 and 2.6.35-rc1
[22:27] <KjetilK> whereas the other kernels are more recent, seems to follow the maverick releases?
[22:31] <JanC> I assume that means they use mavericks kernel config
[22:34]  * KjetilK nods
[22:35] <KjetilK> from the name linux-meta-lts-backport-maverick, it sounds like it is a backport to lts, which is a good sign, I suppose...
[22:42]  * KjetilK tries it
[22:51] <JanC> BTW: you should be able to build a 1080p system that needs *significantly* less than 15W nowadays