[07:15]  * apw yawns
[07:15]  * smb joins
[07:18]  * smb tries to remember what he was doing last week (when failing to take notes along)
[07:19] <cking> smb, doing the usual random server stuff?
[07:19] <smb> cking, Sort of. But it would look a bit slim to have only "random stuff" in the report.. ;)
[07:22]  * cking nods
[07:26] <apw> smb, copy the week befores perhaps :)
[07:27] <smb> apw, Heh, that would be nasty... :) Wonder how long one gets away with sending old status...
[07:27] <apw> pretty sure you did some cve testing for me
[07:27] <apw> also a bunch of reviews for that
[07:28] <smb> Yep, taht as well. And random testing an analysis to get hvm working... or at least to help upstream to get it working...
[07:33] <cking> apw, I'm getting the flights for UDS sorted, I will copy you when I get some details back
[07:41] <apw> cking, ack
[07:41]  * apw idly wonders if there are any united flights, i might just make pink on their awards scheme
[07:44] <smb> apw, Will that give you anything substantial good or just the good feeling of having reached some status anywhere...?
[07:44] <apw> heh no idea :)
[07:58]  * apw notes that someone is still using the old kernel numbering in their branches; for-v2.6.41
[08:00]  * Tommeh has e-mailed Realtek over their r8168 driver makefile not properly behaving when it sees kernel version 3.0

[08:02] <apw> Tommeh, yeah we just wacked the version check in the version in the kernel
[08:02] <jk-> apw: heh
[08:02] <jk-> kicking and screaming into 3.0
[08:03] <apw> jk-, more sort of out of the code all together
[08:04] <jk-> apw: ah, i meant in reference to 2.6.41
[08:04] <apw> yeah the reference actually was merging for-2.6.40 into for-2.6.41
[08:04] <apw> so they are pretty adament :)
[10:19] <jwi> hmpf, is current lucid-proposed really just a single patch?
[10:22] <jwi> anyway, apparently it's causing a regression; bug 815379
[10:22] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 815379 in linux "Shutdown problem with the last Lucid kernel updates (linux-image-2.6.32-33.71-generic)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/815379
[11:18] <apw> jwi, yep, there is almost no way that that update can affect shutdown
[11:22] <Tommeh> apw: r8168 doesn't need to be built from source manually?
[11:22] <Tommeh> I wasn't aware it was distributed with the official kernels.
[11:23] <apw> Tommeh, no idea, the same bug is in every single one of their code clone drivers
[11:23] <Tommeh> Ah, bah
[11:23] <Tommeh> I was going to start begging for a patch against the makefile then :p
[11:23] <apw> they cirtainly know how to amk
[11:23] <apw> make their h/w undesirable for oss
[11:43]  * ppisati -> out to get some food
[11:54] <jwi> apw: well if it turns out that it does affect shutdown, i'd *love* to know why ;)
[12:27] <apw> jwi, very true
[12:42] <smb> apw, Hm, at least in my 64bit VM the #71 lucid kernel shuts down to (virtual) power off
[13:17] <apw> smb, good to know (for sconklin) :)
[13:18] <smb> reduce panic level by two points... :)
[13:40] <tgardner> ogasawara, did you forget to announce the ABI bump? or have I just not received the list email yet?
[13:41] <ogasawara> tgardner: I got distracted, will send it momentarily
[13:42]  * apw would have done it if he could get the post to the blog to work
[13:42] <apw> ogasawara, i am running the new kernel on my netbook ok so far
[13:43] <ogasawara> apw: I've got it on 3 of my boxes here, no fires yet
[13:44] <dupondje> Jul 25 15:44:20 laptop-jl kernel: [16860.323922] dell_wmi: Unknown key e0f7 pressed
[13:44] <dupondje> But the key actually worked ... Any idea's ?
[13:44] <dupondje> kernel bug or ?
[13:45] <apw> dupondje, what does the key do
[13:45] <apw> dupondje, also if they key works i am not sure it matters if we report a diagnostic for it
[13:45] <dupondje> it changes volume
[13:45] <dupondje> volume is changed, but kernel trows error
[13:47] <dupondje> Only seem to happen with some hotkeys
[13:47] <apw> dupondje, my gut reaction is that if the buttons work then its not very important
[13:48] <dupondje> True :) But its strange kernel throws a warning for a working key
[13:48] <dupondje> but its not really an issue indeed
[13:48] <apw> not necessarily, it may be passing both a WMI event and a normal key event for them
[13:48] <apw> so we get 'two'
[13:50] <dupondje> Ah ok
[13:50] <ohsix> theres something with the hotkey stuff that makes g-p-m adjust the backlight 3 times for every press too; couldn't figure out what
[13:51] <apw> ohsix, yep, as far as i can see in my setups the kernel emits 1 keypress and the tripple adjust occurs after.  i got bored after that
[13:51] <ohsix> i found out a way to disable one extra reporting, but not the third
[13:52] <ohsix> acpi and the input device for the video reports it
[13:53] <ohsix> dunno if i posted this in here already https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-power-manager/+bug/802276
[13:53] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 802276 in gnome-power-manager "brightness adjust 3 steps from hard (Fn) keys" [Undecided,New]
[13:54] <ohsix> if g-p-m isn't running the adjustments don't happen, but g-p-m from its output appears to state it only sets it once
[13:55] <ohsix> i think the X thing opening it as a device for input is ending up as an extra adjustment somewhere
[13:55] <ohsix> possibly delivered to g-p-m as a keysym
[13:56] <dupondje> apw: for the key errors, I create a bug in kernel bugzilla?
[13:57] <apw> dupondje, probabally yeah, perhaps file a bug agianst linux and link it to the upstream bug so anyone else who comes across it can find the links easily
[13:58] <ohsix> the most annoying thing about 3 steps isn't the lost resolution, but that there's 10 steps overall and you need to turn it all the way down then back up to set a level, or the other way around
[14:10] <edrozim> Hello . I am trying to setup limits for open files . I use /etc/security/limits.conf for this 
[14:11] <edrozim> but when I do grep files /proc/<PID>/limits  I see another value not one that I specified in limits.conf
[14:11] <apw> have you logged out and in since ?
[14:11] <edrozim> yap several times
[14:11] <edrozim> I add following lines to limits.conf
[14:11] <edrozim> * soft nofile 65536
[14:12] <edrozim> * hard nofile 65536
[14:12] <apw> and what limit does it limit to
[14:12] <edrozim> 4096
[14:12]  * apw has the feeling that that may be the upper limit in the kernel
[14:12] <smb> That limits do not always apply to all processes
[14:13] <dupondje> https://bugs.launchpad.net/linux/+bug/815914 there :D
[14:13] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 815914 in linux "dell_wmi: Unknown key eXXX pressed" [Undecided,New]
[14:13] <smb> It depends on pam applying the limits and IIRC that is done differently for processes with a terminal and without (one does nothing at all I think)
[14:13] <tgardner> apw, seems like I wrote a patch for that awhile back. 
[14:14] <apw> tgardner, indeed that is my memory, and why 4096 seemed relevant
[14:15] <edrozim> the process that important for me is crash with "Too many open files " :(
[14:15] <smb> apw, You could change it but for that you'd need to change common-session-noninteractive
[14:15] <edrozim> and I see that it have 4092 open files 
[14:15] <apw> edrozim, what the heck does it do that 4k open files is not enough, likely it is broken
[14:16] <edrozim> apw, I agree with you it is application that written by not very good programmer . But I force to deal with it :(
[14:17] <edrozim> and I should make it alive 
[14:17] <apw> tgardner, smb, any idea if you can raise limits beyond the base in the kernel?
[14:17] <smb> apw, yes
[14:18] <tgardner> apw, IIRC you cannot exceed the hard limit.
[14:18] <smb> edrozim, You need to experiment, though I think it is /etc/pam.d/common-session-noninteractive which needs an additional line like
[14:18] <smb> session    required     pam_limits.so
[14:20] <tgardner> apw, 0ac1ee0bfec2a4ad118f907ce586d0dfd8db7641
[14:20] <edrozim> smb , thanks I will try and get back to you with result
[14:21] <apw> tgardner, yeah thats the one
[14:21] <smb> edrozim, It needs a reboot as well as far as I know
[14:22] <edrozim> smb, doing it right now ( it is another system ) 
[14:26] <edrozim> smb , after restart I still see 4096 for "grep files /proc/<PID>/limits"
[14:27] <smb> edrozim, hm, is that maybe a process that could be considered interactive?
[14:28] <smb> There are two common files in /etc/pam.d one for interactive sessions and one for the others...
[14:29] <edrozim> smb, it is java process but it don't have any UI it run like a service
[14:29] <edrozim> smb, I will try to update second file /etc/pam.d/common-session
[14:30] <smb> edrozim, So maybe its worth a try to try the other one. And remove the changes in the first
[14:30] <edrozim> smb,  I see that I already had session required pam_limits.so
[14:30] <edrozim> in /etc/pam.d/common-session
[14:31] <smb> Hm are the additional entries before the optional ones?
[14:33] <herton> ppisati: can you check and rebase against master (2.6.38-11.47) the natty ti-omap4 branch? we need to release a new update
[14:35] <edrozim> smb, http://paste.pocoo.org/show/446058/ - this is common-session
[14:35] <edrozim> smb , and this is http://paste.pocoo.org/show/446060/ - this is noninteractive
[14:35] <apw> edrozim, and how does the app get started
[14:36] <smb> Hm, the place looks right. So all should get the soft limit set in limits.conf...
[14:37]  * ogasawara back in 20
[14:37] <edrozim> apw , it is java application that have several *.sh  that call each other so it is difficult to detect 
[14:37] <edrozim> apw, I can give you output of ps ax if you want ?
[14:38] <apw> nope that won't help me i don't thin
[14:38] <smb> I guess the question was more targettat at whether you start them form cmdline or it gets started as a init task
[14:40] <edrozim> smb, but anyway I update both session files
[14:40] <edrozim> also I see that NetworkManager process have same limit
[14:40] <edrozim> I take it just for example
[14:41] <edrozim> grep files /proc/<NetworkManager PID>/limits 
[14:41] <edrozim> give me Max open files            1024                 4096                 files
[14:42] <edrozim> so actually issue is not with this certain java application but genrally with system - it get limits per process not from limits.conf
[14:42] <edrozim> ... or I can to give this limits correctly :)
[14:42] <smb> That are the kernel default, but I thought I had been playing a while ago and got the limits changed by limits.conf and changes to the session files
[14:43] <smb> Hm, wait... could the number you give be too high...
[14:43] <smb> edrozim, Have you tried some smaller values yet? like 8192 for soft and hard?
[14:44] <edrozim> smb , ok I will try 
[14:45] <edrozim> smb, is it OK if I will leave "session required pam_limits.so" in both files ?
[14:46] <smb> edrozim, You just have to be aware that the limits (if it works) then apply for anything in the system
[14:47] <apw> edrozim, one limitiation in there is that * will not match root, so if your task starts as root and does not use anything which triggers pam to switch user it might avoid the limits
[14:48] <apw> you might try adding root soft ... and root hard ... and see if that changes anything
[14:49] <smb> apw, good point
[14:53] <apw> smb, its not at all clear unless su/sudo is used in application startup that any of pam will apply
[14:53] <apw> edrozim, what starts this program, is it an init script
[14:53] <smb> apw, As I said, I though I had seen the noninteractive have some effect on things started through init
[14:54] <edrozim> apw , I start it manually . I login as normal user than made "sudo -s"  and start "sh" file
[14:54] <edrozim> apw , smb , but any I add special lines for root 
[14:55] <edrozim> *anyway*
[14:55] <apw> edrozim, so if you do like ulimit -n 8192 after sudo -s, then run it does it work ?
[14:55] <apw> if so you could just add that ulimit to the .sh and be happy
[14:57] <edrozim> apw , !!!! thanks now it works :)
[14:57] <edrozim> I add lines to limits.conf
[14:57] <edrozim> smb , thanks to you too 
[14:58] <edrozim> main point was as I understand that '*' don't apply to root
[14:59] <apw> thats what it says in the comments in the limits.conf file
[15:01] <edrozim> yap no I see this ...
[15:58] <hggdh> herton: you there?
[15:58] <herton> hggdh: yes
[15:58] <hggdh> herton: I am looking for the 2.6.35-30 backport for lucid
[15:59] <hggdh> herton: and cannot find the packages... archive.ubuntu.com only has the .dsc and .tar.gz, no binaries
[16:00] <apw> hggdh, are they in universe
[16:01] <ricotz> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-lts-backport-maverick
[16:01] <hggdh> apw: ah! thank you
[16:01] <apw> hggdh, ok thats wrong
[16:01] <hggdh> did not even think of looking in universe
[16:01] <apw> hggdh, i don't think they are meant to be in universe
[16:02] <tgardner> apw, it should be in main
[16:02] <hggdh> apw: still, I should have looked there (just in case), and asked about them being in universe ;-)
[16:04] <apw> hggdh, heh, will poke an AA and find out whats what
[16:41] <apw> tgardner, ok master watson is sorting out the universiness ... should be sorted in an hour
[16:42] <tgardner> apw, ack
[16:42] <tgardner> now if I could just get linux-ti-omap4 NEW'd, life would be good (or at least less of a hassle)
[16:46] <apw> m.watson is at debconf so you'll be looking for a new help
[16:46] <apw> i thought we had a new kernel  trained aa in the us now
[16:47] <tgardner> apw, should be clint
[16:57] <jvgeli> I am running Natty on a laptop with AMD Fusion E350. HD Radeon 6310. My kernel is .39 RC4 but I get these freezes on the log in screes. Logs are clean, no indication of an error. Already filed a bug but somehow no one seems to know what he issue is. Hunch is pm_utils. someone tried downgrading pm_utils to Lucid version and it worked for them, but not for me. Is this a kernel issue? do we...
[16:58] <jvgeli> ...have some kind of workaround?
[17:00] <Tommeh> jvgeli, IIRC Fusion was a little flakey without newer packages from xorg-edgers.
[17:00] <Tommeh> You might wish to try that.
[17:00] <Tommeh> Actually, first, try kernel 3.0
[17:01] <jvgeli> Tommeh: tried kernel 3.0 broke my system
[17:01] <jvgeli> added xorg edgers and upgraded, broke my system
[17:01] <Tommeh> You are having fun. :)
[17:01] <jvgeli> yes I am, reinstalled 4 times in 3 days. really fun
[17:04] <Tommeh> Heh
[17:04] <Tommeh> Well, http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_llano_graphics&num=1
[17:04] <jvgeli> now I am on .39 with an fglrx patch. got the GPU part working
[17:04] <Tommeh> Bottom paragraph of that page (article written on June 14th) mentions that there isn't good Fusion/Llano support in any OS, which would include Natty at that point.
[17:04] <jvgeli> the issue is this freezing problem on battery. looking at the bugs list looks like im not the only one. 
[17:05] <Tommeh> And hints at 3.0 + what will be in 'edgers to get stable support.
[17:05] <Tommeh> jvgeli, do you know if you're using dynpm power management?
[17:06] <jvgeli> Tommeh: how do i find that out? talk to me please as if I am a newbie:)
[17:06] <Tommeh> http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature
[17:06] <Tommeh> Scroll down to the paragraph regarding power management. :)
[17:06] <Tommeh> Or Kernel Power Management options.
[17:07] <Tommeh> You might find that you can keep the GPU stable with 'mid' power profile and/or disabling dynpm if it's enabled.
[17:07] <Tommeh> (Just heed the warnings regarding the low profile - it's not meant to be used with the monitors on. :))
[17:08] <Tommeh> FYI, there's a #radeon channel for the ATI/AMD FOSS drivers, too. :)
[17:09] <jvgeli> okay, im okay with warnings. been  hearing it a lot lately. When i told #ubuntu about me running kernel 3 on Natty the first words were bad and idea
[17:09] <Tommeh> airlied/agd5f/glisse are all there. :)
[17:09] <Tommeh> Haha.. I've been running it since -rc1. :)
[17:09] <Tommeh> Depends really where you get it from and/or how you compile it.
[17:09] <Tommeh> But it's been quite good to tell the truth.
[17:10] <Tommeh> I can only hope that 3.1 is as quiet for a nice, stable 11.10 release.
[17:12] <jvgeli> Tommeh: yeah, I also observed the faster performance in 3.0. If a stable one comes out id definitely get it. 
[17:12] <apw> jvgeli, i am running 3.0 on much of my kit and its holding together
[17:12] <Tommeh> I know how you feel though. My first experience of Ubuntu was installing 7.04 on a fakeraid set. I wound-up installing it by hand from a chroot, because the installer had no knowledge of dmraid/fakeraid. You had to install it manually with dpkg and use apt-get to pull down ubuntu-minimal/ubuntu-desktop meta-packages, etc. :)
[17:12] <Tommeh> Endless 'fun'
[17:13] <Tommeh> jvgeli, in theory, 3.0 is out now and stable. Where are you getting your kernels from?
[17:13] <jvgeli> canonical kernel team
[17:14] <Tommeh> As-in, this page? http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/
[17:14] <jvgeli> pre compiled one. I dont have the patience to compile my own. 
[17:14] <jvgeli> bingo!
[17:14] <Tommeh> WFM. :)
[17:15] <Tommeh> 3.0 works here (with Intel 2500K and HD6850) but my NIC driver is funky and doesn't allow for 3.0 as the kernel version, so spits out a 2.4.x kernel module.) 
[17:15]  * apw is using the oneiric kernels
[17:15] <jwi> hm, 3.1 in oneiric - you think that's likely?
[17:16] <apw> jwi, no
[17:16] <jwi> thought so
[17:20]  * Tommeh figured 3.1 would be out well before October.
[17:20] <Tommeh> Oh well. :)
[17:20] <jjohansen> jwi: well you can always try the 3.1 mainline kernel, I'm sure you will be able to be oneiric on it
[17:31] <bdmurray> bjf: bug 717167 isn't really missing anything
[17:31] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 717167 in linux "package linux-image-2.6.38-3-generic 2.6.38-3.30 failed to install/upgrade: ErrorMessage: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 2" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/717167
[17:34] <apw> bjf, it looks to be a different class of bug which is really about packaging not about running so those files may well make sense as a complete set in that context
[17:34] <bjf> bdmurray, i'm not making a distinction between package bugs and others
[17:34] <bjf> apw, ^
[17:35] <apw> bjf, it looks like we have a ProblemType, perhaps we could just ignore those with 'Package'
[17:35] <apw> or indeed tag them kernel-packaging or somethin
[17:35] <bdmurray> yes either the tag apport-package or ProblemType: Package
[17:35] <bdmurray> ^- those mean the same thing
[17:35] <apw> oh its already tagged
[17:35] <bjf> apw, bdmurray, will look into it
[17:36] <bdmurray> I'm going through and looking for grub2 bug reports and moving them to the right place
[17:36] <apw> bjf for your todo list :)
[17:36] <bjf> apw, bdmurray, we seem to be getting a lot of packaging bugs
[17:37] <apw> yeah there was a huge spike in those recently i heard, an apt problem or something, bdmurray are you saying there is also a grub2 problem in the mix
[17:37] <bdmurray> well the kernel post-inst calls update-initramfs which uses grub scripts to generate the grub.cfg
[17:38] <bdmurray> and people mucking about with grub config files can cause this to fail
[17:38] <apw> bdmurray, right so do we have a grub2 regression in natty, or ...
[17:38] <apw> ahh
[17:38] <bdmurray> or it could just be a bug in grub2
[17:38] <bdmurray> anyway I've fixed apport now to send more bugs to grub2 and this is just cleanup
[17:38] <apw> bdmurray, nice, the more bugs we don't get the happier i am
[17:49] <apw> bjf, i assume you noticed the but report is 'stuck'
[17:50] <bjf> apw, nope
[17:50] <bjf> apw, but i see it now
[17:51] <bjf> how annoying
[17:51] <kees> apw: okay... what CVEs you see that are "pending" that you think should be released? my scanners don't show anything to me presently, and I wanted to double-check with you before I moved on to the status-sync tool work.
[17:53] <apw> kees, things seem much more what i'd expect now, as in lucid is mostly released etc
[17:53] <apw> kees, and i have no specific examples in mind right now
[17:53] <apw> kees, i am mostly waiting now for things to actually release
[17:54] <apw> kees, ps what did you do, i had all those lovely 0s and now 2011-1083 is back
[17:54] <apw> that's just plain mean
[17:55] <bjf> bdmurray, i think i've fixed that for package bugs, if you see any new ones which are incorrect, please let me know
[17:56] <kees> apw: 2011-1083 and 2011-1747 turn out to not actually have upstream fixes (they had been incorrectly linked to other CVE fixes)
[17:57] <kees> apw: on the other hand, 7 CVEs that aren't tracked yet have already been fixed in several releases
[17:57] <apw> kees, when might we get those on our list
[17:57] <kees> I'm gonna get those into the list today
[17:58] <kees> will be using them as a test for the status sync tool
[17:58] <kees> "does this CVE have a bug? *create*" etc
[18:00]  * tgardner slinks off for lunch
[18:05] <apw> kees, ok cool, will look out for them in the AM
[18:05] <apw> and see what we find
[18:06] <kees> cool
[18:47]  * apw wanders off ... see ya tmmrrow
[19:23]  * jjohansen lunch
[20:20]  * bjf -> errand 
[21:00]  * herton -> eod
[21:26] <bdmurray> ogasawara: could you look at bug 811913?
[21:26] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 811913 in linux "grub-pc replaces grub-efi and grub-efi-amd64 on upgrade" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/811913
[21:51] <facundobatista> Hey sconklin 
[21:51] <facundobatista> Hello everybody
[21:51] <sconklin> hi facundobatista
[21:52] <sconklin> so , I suggest that you enable the -proposed pocket, which will give you all the packages which are being tested there in preparation for release
[21:52] <facundobatista> sconklin, is that at apt-get level?
[21:52] <sconklin> Including the latest kernel package, which is a good way to see whether the problems you have are already solved by a change which has yet to be released
[21:53] <sconklin> one sec while I find the wiki page
[21:53] <facundobatista> ok
[21:55] <sconklin> well, I can walk you through it. I can't find a wiki doc
[21:55] <jwi> bdmurray: see bug 800910
[21:55] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 800910 in apt "Kernel Upgrade forces removal of grub-efi due to missing recommends entry" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/800910
[21:55] <sconklin> open the update manager, and then click on "Settings"
[21:56] <sconklin> Then under "Updates" select "Pre-released updates"
[21:58] <sforshee> sconklin, facundobatista: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed
[21:59] <sconklin> sforshee: thanks
[22:00] <sconklin> facundobatista: you can follow those  instructions, and if you only want to enable kernel updates, you can do the part under "selective upgrading"
[22:06] <facundobatista> sconklin, and which would be the kernel package to install from proposed?
[22:07] <sconklin> if you enable -proposed and install it, right now you will get the 2.6.38-11.47 kernel for Natty
[22:07] <sconklin> You can always see the kernel versions here:
[22:07] <sconklin> http://people.canonical.com/~kernel/reports/versions.html
[22:07] <facundobatista> sconklin, but which package is it? "linux-generic"?
[22:07] <sconklin> (ignore the PPA version unless you're on the kernel team)
[22:08] <charlie-tca> question? bugs are confirmed by brad figg pretty quickly. Are these complete bugs, and do they need to be marked triaged?
[22:08] <sconklin> bjf^^
[22:08] <sconklin> facundobatista: why? are you trying to pull the package and install it manually?
[22:09] <sconklin> (which is an ok thing to do)
[22:09] <bjf> charlie-tca, 1) that's a bot doing it, 2) "confirmed" means it has the logs we require
[22:09] <quentusrex_> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/815540
[22:09] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 815540 in linux "Server becomes unresponsive after spawning 16 ksoftirqd processes" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[22:09] <facundobatista> sconklin, no, but I want to do the "sudo apt-get install linux-generic/proposed" or something
[22:09] <sconklin> you can see what version you have now with "uname -a"
[22:09] <bjf> charlie-tca, going to "triaged" usually means that the latest upstream kernel has been tested
[22:10] <charlie-tca> Okay, That sounds good to me
[22:10] <facundobatista> ajá! I have a -generic one
[22:10] <sconklin> facundobatista: once you change the  settings in update manager, all you have to do is "apt get update" and "apt-get dist-upgrade" and it will use the new pocket
[22:10] <quentusrex> Anyone know how to get a per device(piece of hardware) interrupt statistics?
[22:10] <sconklin> (and also get every other package in -proposed) 
[22:11] <facundobatista> sconklin, I specifically put a file to not do that (following the wiki instructions), I do not want to update *everything*
[22:11] <sconklin> ok
[22:14] <facundobatista> sconklin, aptitude tells me that it doesn't find an archive "proposed" for the package "linux-generic" :(
[22:14] <sconklin> just use "linux"
[22:16] <facundobatista> it installed 2.6.38.10.25
[22:19] <sconklin> facundobatista: that is the meta package version, and it will pull in the kernel versions. But - it's the one in -updates, not the one in -proposed
[22:19] <sconklin> so check your package exclusion filtyers
[22:19] <facundobatista> sconklin, yes, I just found that
[22:19] <facundobatista> if I do apt-cache policy I see the newer version in proposed
[22:20] <facundobatista> sconklin, so, the instructions in that wiki page are not working :(
[22:20] <sconklin> that wiki page is very badly written
[22:21] <sconklin> I have never filtered anything, I always take the latest -proposed, in order to help test all packages. So I'm not terribly skilled at that part
[22:21] <facundobatista> sconklin, it's my working laptop, stability is a priority, I don't want to go bleeding edge :|
[22:22] <bjf> facundobatista, if you have -proposed enabled, you could use synaptic pkg manager to just select the kernel version you want
[22:22] <bjf> facundobatista, you can also run update-manager and just select the kernel, though deselecting all the other cruft is a pain
[22:28] <sconklin> facundobatista: and yes, this is a pain. It should be easy to take proposed on only one or several packages, and it's been a wish list item for years.
[22:35] <jwi> bjf: have you considered doing all the bot work through a proper bot account (or with some disclaimer)? i saw several bugs where users were confused and thought you were experiencing the same issue (thus confirming)
[22:37] <bjf> jwi, you don't think: "This change has been made by an automated script, maintained by the Ubuntu Kernel Team." is enough of a disclaimer?
[22:37] <jwi> the new -> confirmed script doesn't have that ...
[22:38] <bjf> jwi, the script will eventually be run as "kernel-janitor" though i'm not sure what that buys anyone, other than people don't know who to ask about it
[22:38] <bjf> jwi, i don't add a comment if it's just changing from new -> confirmed
[22:40] <facundobatista> sconklin, it works ok with the proposed kernel!!
[22:41] <sconklin> facundobatista: thanks a lot for going to the trouble to test that for us. It helps us a lot.
[22:42] <facundobatista> sconklin, :)
[22:42] <facundobatista> sconklin, thank you!!
[22:43] <jwi> bjf: ok, either you completely misunderstood me or just dont think its a problem. fair enough :)
[22:44] <bjf> jwi, i'm open to listening, is there an issue with this being done as me while it's in development?
[23:37] <sconklin> and thank you for your kind words
[23:38] <sconklin> kamal ^^
[23:39] <kamal> sconklin: np
[23:40] <xteejx> Hey guys, are there any kernel triagers hat can look into something for me please?
[23:41] <xteejx> Its about bug 816145, it has personally affected me on the exact same laptop (was previously my machine). Is there enough information there for me to be able to send it upstream??
[23:41] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 816145 in linux "Atheros AR5001 wireless card "wireless is disabled by hardware switch"" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/816145