[00:48] <bryceh_> raevol, you'd need to specifically install it; nothing in the ppa has a direct depend on it so it won't get pulled in automatically
[00:49] <raevol> bryceh_: even though the note on the package says not to specifically install it?
[00:54] <bryceh_> raevol, I'm fairly sure, but sarvatt could tell us for certain
[00:56] <RAOF> The package description is copied from the main archive one which, indeed, you don't want to install explicitly.
[00:57] <RAOF> But in edgers you do, because we don't upload a new linux-meta that would pull it in.
[00:57] <bryceh_> the edgers docs could stand some freshening
[03:50] <bryceh_> tjaalton, I've pushed the xorg changes to migrate failsafex and the apport hook; would appreciate your review, I had to fight with git a bit to get it in
[07:05] <tjaalton> bryceh_: the failsafex-extraction -branch? yeah new branches need force to push them to origin
[07:27] <tjaalton> hum no, I think the other branch was mistakenly pushed, and the ubuntu branch already has the changes?
[07:28] <tjaalton> looks like there are some changes in the extraction-branch that need to be merged with ubuntu
[07:29] <tjaalton> em, pulled to ubuntu
[07:43] <tjaalton> bryceh_: so the versioning at least is messed up :)
[07:43] <tjaalton> natty has 1:7.6+4ubuntu5, while the current git has u4
[07:44] <tjaalton> and natty didn't get u4 at all
[07:45] <tjaalton> and sru's should use X.N
[07:45] <tjaalton> and be in their own branch, IMO, but that hasn't been discussed
[07:45] <tjaalton> that's the only way we'll be able to keep sanity when doing point-release updates
[07:50] <tjaalton> bryceh_: also, I think we should use name the patches as '.diff', so git will complain if you haven't added it
[07:51] <tjaalton> re: libxi missing a patch from git
[07:51] <tjaalton> and xorg-server upload not pushed :)
[07:51] <tjaalton> to git
[09:37] <tjaalton> bryceh_: sorry, now I saw the natty upload, and it has 4ubuntu3.1 which is correct
[09:38] <tjaalton> and indeed there is no xorg upload to oneiric yet, so ubuntu4 is the right version for it
[09:38] <tjaalton> just got confused about the other branch
[09:39] <tjaalton> bryceh_: so I'll just merge the failsafe-branch and delete it from origin, i believe you pushed it by mistake
[11:25] <janimo> what is a good tool to monitor/debug X window messages in a running session, seeing which window/app sent what and when
[12:22] <tjaalton> janimo: can't think of one, but iirc there was something similar that I accidentally bumped into recently..
[12:22] <tjaalton> if only i could remember the name
[12:44] <janimo> tjaalton, I saw xmsgtrace but it is old and not packaged so I suspected there must be something better
[12:49] <tjaalton> janimo: well, if it does the job then use it :)
[13:21] <janimo> tjaalton, did not try it yet, hence my inquiry for one that can be apt-get installed first
[17:58] <cnd> bryceh_, thanks for uploading the xorg-server with the fix to oneiric
[17:58] <cnd> for natty, would you be able to upload an sru to proposed for me?
[17:59] <cnd> do you want me to generate the package, or is that simple enough for you to do?
[17:59] <cnd> should just be a changelog edit from 2:1.10.1-1ubuntu2 to 2:1.10.1-1ubuntu1.1 and oneiric to natty-proposed right?
[18:10] <tjaalton> yep, and preferably in another branch
[18:11] <tjaalton> *in a branch of its own
[18:13] <cnd> tjaalton, ahh yes, I'll make a new branch
[18:13] <tjaalton> note that the current branch doesn't have the commit closing the version
[18:14] <tjaalton> which isn't an issue in this case though
[18:14] <tjaalton> and, I have another patch to push there
[18:14] <tjaalton> for an sru
[18:14] <cnd> tjaalton, the current branch has been released
[18:14] <cnd> just fyi
[18:15] <tjaalton> released yes
[18:16] <cnd> wasn't sure if you knew that
[18:16] <tjaalton> oh wait, maybe I'm trusting debian-x@ commit logs too much
[18:16] <cnd> tjaalton, bryceh_: I just pushed a new branch ubuntu-natty
[18:16] <tjaalton> nope, the ubuntu branch is still UNRELEASED
[19:31] <bjsnider> why does natty have a 2 year old version of ia32-libs?
[19:31] <ScottK> It doesn't.
[19:32] <jcristau> it just has a silly version number
[19:32] <ScottK> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ia32-libs/20090808ubuntu13 <-- Less than a month old.
[19:33] <bjsnider> it is not 20090808 at the present time, and it hasn't been for almost 2 years
[19:33] <bjsnider> and it's not likely to be 2009 again any time soon
[19:34] <bjsnider> debian packages that depend on 20101012 are uninstallable
[19:47] <bryceh_> bjsnider, the package itself is from 2009 but the contents have been updated with newer packages.  So like jcristau says it's just a silly version number, not an indication of internal ancientness
[19:55] <bjsnider> bryceh_, i understand, but by not syncing the version number with debian, the debian packages built around the newest version there fail to install because of dependency issues
[19:55] <jcristau> so don't install debian packages on ubuntu
[19:55] <tjaalton> it's hopefully going away this cycle
[19:56] <tjaalton> bryceh_: did you get my msgs from earlier today? you forgot to git push xorg-server
[19:57] <bryceh_> tjaalton, no missed that
[19:58] <bryceh_> tjaalton, there's no changes though, only a changelog bump
[19:59] <tjaalton> bryceh_: right, just wanted to let you know :)
[19:59] <tjaalton> i have pending patches
[19:59] <tjaalton> to push
[19:59] <bryceh_> pushed
[19:59] <tjaalton> thanks
[19:59] <tjaalton> well, patch
[20:02] <bjsnider> tjaalton, the package in question doesn't exist in ubuntu
[20:03] <tjaalton> bjsnider: i meant ia32-libs gets removed iff multiarch is finalized by 11.10
[20:04] <bjsnider> tjaalton, i didn't even know multiarch was on the table for oneiric.
[20:04] <tjaalton> natty already has some of it completed
[20:08] <tjaalton> bryceh_: also, did you mean to push the ubuntu-failsafe-extraction -branch to alioth?
[20:08] <bryceh_> tjaalton, is that a problem?
[20:08] <bryceh_> tjaalton, it's no longer needed if you want to remove it
[20:08] <tjaalton> bryceh_: no, just wondering since there only is a few lines diff
[20:09] <tjaalton> the ubuntu proper is missing the removal of po-failsafe and dh_installinit failsafe-x
[20:10] <tjaalton> but that's all
[20:10] <bryceh_> tjaalton, if you were just wondering if yesterday I was finding git frustrating, well the answer would be an affirmative
[20:11] <tjaalton> well merging changes to the changelog surely will make you feel miserable :)
[20:11] <tjaalton> i bet no vcs would be different there
[20:12] <bryceh_> hmm, po-failsafe is not in my local copy
[20:12] <tjaalton> of the ubuntu-branch?
[20:12] <bryceh_> yeah
[20:12] <tjaalton> hang on, I'll pastebin the diff
[20:13] <bryceh_> well, the most frustrating bit was deleting debian/apport/source_xorg.py
[20:13] <tjaalton> http://paste.ubuntu.com/609677/
[20:14] <tjaalton> maybe I'm reading the diff wrong :P
[20:14] <tjaalton> grah, yeah
[20:14] <tjaalton> damnit
[20:14] <tjaalton> so, no worries, I'll just purge the extraction-branch
[20:15] <bryceh_> (dammit is spelt without an n; go english consistency)
[20:15] <bryceh_> ok, so no other changes needed in the branch?
[20:16] <bryceh_> if it looks ok, should I go ahead and push it, or should I wait until xdiagnose is in main?
[20:17] <tjaalton> maybe I'll check it out properly tomorrow, this kinda held me back so I did other things
[20:25] <tjaalton> well, not maybe, but definitely :)
[21:28] <bryceh_> tjaalton, also review 7eda07c4dea6e6f2ae6e6892bf6f77af0834f231 on -intel
[21:28] <tjaalton> bryceh_: sure thing