[03:17] <AElfwine> hello
[03:17] <AElfwine> does anyone know if mesa 7.11 will be packaged on ppa x-updates for natty?
[03:20] <RAOF> I don't plan to, and I don't know of anyone who does.
[03:21] <RAOF> If someone wanted to do the work, I guess.
[03:22] <AElfwine> ok thanks
[06:14] <RAOF> Oh, poulsbo.  Must you be so hateful?
[06:18] <tjaalton> leave it alone?-)
[06:29] <RAOF> Bug #815000 prevents me from properly leaving it alone.
[06:29] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 815000 in xorg (Ubuntu) "Oneiric X/LightDM doesn't start on an Intel GMA500 (affects: 1) (heat: 410)" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/815000
[06:34] <tjaalton> ah :)
[06:35] <tjaalton> so not even fbdev works with it
[06:40] <RAOF> Which is odd, 'cause the staging psb driver is a kms driver.
[06:58] <tjaalton> right
[13:04] <bjsnider> ricotz, all of a sudden i don't have to type a password to install updates. is this some change that came in through the gnome 3 ppa?
[17:59] <diverse_izzue> so this sandybridge new acceleration SNA that phoronix is talking about... is it active in oneiric? or if not, can i activate it?
[17:59] <Duke`> it is active in xorg-edgers
[18:00]  * Duke` is having some troubles with it ;_;
[18:00] <diverse_izzue> so plan for oneiric is to leave it disabled?
[18:00] <diverse_izzue> is it a compile-time option?
[18:01] <Sarvatt> diverse_izzue: yep disabled in oneiric (and 12.04 most likely because of that), it is a compile time option
[18:03] <diverse_izzue> wouldn't the release before 12.04 be the time to go wild for the last time? :-)
[18:05] <Sarvatt> thats what I was saying, but intel strongly recommended not doing it
[18:06] <diverse_izzue> oh... well, they would probably know
[18:06] <Sarvatt> got the impression they have some other plans for it, like scrapping it
[18:06] <diverse_izzue> time will show
[18:08] <diverse_izzue> how about providing it as an *-experimental package, as fedora has been doing for unstable graphics drivers?
[18:09] <Sarvatt> I think RAOF already did that, not sure what his plans are with it though. he's going to be on in a few hours
[18:09] <Sarvatt> (like 4-5 hours I think)
[22:40] <RAOF> Sarvatt: Yeah.  I was taklking with ickle and keithp, and they were both strongly on the side of UXA in LTS.  They don't plan to have a flag-day where SNA becomes the default; ideas might migrate through to UXA, though.
[22:40] <RAOF> Sarvatt: If you wanted to build both SNA and UXA in edgers I have done essentially all the work needed to make that happen.
[22:42] <Sarvatt> RAOF: oh? hate to fork the packaging but that sounds worthwhile while there are unity specific problems that wont get fixed :P
[22:44] <RAOF> Let me just check that it actually does what I remember, then I'll push it somewhere public for you.
[22:44] <RAOF> It ends up building two DDXs - intel and intelsna
[22:45] <Sarvatt> same source package though? sounds good to me
[22:46] <Sarvatt> RAOF: no rush if you dont have it handy, i'm super swamped doing lucid backport stuff
[22:46] <RAOF> Yeah, same source package.
[23:25] <bjsnider> they want their DDX to use UXA instead of SNA in an LTS?
[23:29] <RAOF> bjsnider: Yes.  They plan to avoid a messy UXA→SNA transition like the EXA→UXA transition, so there's no benefit in shipping a separate SNA driver.
[23:30] <bjsnider> i was just innocently making fun of your excessive use of acronyms
[23:32] <bjsnider> BTW, you should probably add that SNA info to the FAQ for the LTS