=== tdmackey_ is now known as tdmackey
[14:28]  * popey tickles cking
[14:28] <popey> who isnt here, bump
[14:28]  * popey tickles apm instead
[14:28] <popey> or apw ☺
[14:29] <popey> I am sat at a LUG meeting with someone who wants to install 12.04 on his Thinkpad X40 laptop. Seems a reasonable thing to want to do.
[14:29] <popey> Sadly 12.04 now doesn't "do" non-pae CPUs, and his laptop is a Pentium M class device - 1.6GHz, and I can't get past the installer. 
[14:30] <popey> I have seen https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-November/034399.html this thread, and wondered if 'orphaned' is really the response for him?
[14:34] <JanC> popey: according to that mail only old Pentium M (400 MHz) should be affected?
[14:35] <popey> well I'm looking at the boot screen of ubuntu 12.04 i386 ISO and it says unable to boot and cites pae as the reason
[14:35] <JanC> popey: BIOS setting?
[14:35] <jwi> bug 930447
[14:35] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 930447 in linux "Unable to Install Ubuntu 12.04 on Pentium M x86 Laptop due to PAE kernel" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/930447
[14:37] <JanC> I guess I should try precise on our event box hardware one of these days
[14:37] <JanC> which is mostly IBM thinkpads with Pentium M's...
[14:39] <mjg59> JanC: 400MHz FSB
[14:39] <mjg59> JanC: Which includes the 1.6GHz ones in the X40
[14:40] <JanC> ah, so that mail was not really good at describing what would be affected
[14:41] <JanC> hm
[14:41] <popey> hmm
[14:41] <popey> soooo, should i file a bug that this machine doesn't boot, is it expected to?
[14:41] <popey> or tell the guy 'tough'
[14:41] <JanC> we have R51 laptops mostly, I think
[14:42] <popey> oh, so from what mjg59 says this is expected to fail?
[14:42] <mjg59> popey: The CPU doesn't support PAE and the kernel in Precise has deliberately be changed to require PAE
[14:42] <popey> bummer
[14:43]  * popey reluctantly puts mint on a USB stick
[14:43] <popey> thanks chaps
[14:44] <mjg59> It's really unclear why Intel didn't implement PAE on those
[14:44] <popey> those linked bug reports do kinda give the impression that we're losing non-PAE in 12.10 not 12.04
[14:44] <popey> specifically the cut/paste from the techboard meeting in december
[14:49] <mjg59> /Looks/ like precise still builds generic and generic-pae packages
[14:49] <popey> but the iso has only got pae on it
[14:49] <popey> may be able to install off mini iso
[14:49] <popey> or upgrade from 11.10
[14:49] <mjg59> And git implies that the generic config still disables pae
[14:50] <mjg59> So sounds like the iso's been built with pae, but the kernel still supports non-pae
[14:50] <popey> thanks for looking
[14:50] <JanC> popey: should be possible to make a non-PAE remix too
[14:52] <JanC> (although maybe not useful immediately at the LUG meeting ;) )
[15:08] <JanC> seems like there Thinkpad R51 have a non-PAE Pentium M too...  :-/
[15:08] <JanC> *these*
[17:36] <apw> popey, we are supporting non-pae on 12.04, but defaulting to -pae on 32bit, including the cds
[17:37] <apw> popey, but if more cpus than we had been told are affected the cd default may be wrong
[17:47] <popey> apw: i was kinda surprised a mainstream device like a thinkpad would be 'broken'
[17:50] <apw> popey, indeed.  you should get a bug filed with teh machine spec, to add to the decision for the cd default
[17:53] <apw> popey, what is annoying is that if you support pae, then a pae kernel saves power
=== lifeless_ is now known as lifeless