[05:19] <superm1> stgraber: do you not have cia turned on for your bzr branch?
[05:19] <superm1> (of ubiquity that is)
[05:20] <stgraber> superm1: yep, I do for ubiquity, I tend to forget for the other ones as I don't usually keep them on my laptop
[05:20] <superm1> oh i just didn't see any announces for today's ubiquity upload in this channel
[05:21] <stgraber> that was ev, so maybe he doesn't have CIA configured
[05:21] <superm1> oh i see, yeah maybe
[12:41] <NCommander> cjwatson: need to pick your brain for a moment. Roughly speaking, how hard would it get base-installer to properly install a kernel from precise-proposed/updates? As far as I understand it, d-i wants to always install the release kernel, then update on the fly
[12:42] <infinity> NCommander: He's on leave.
[12:42]  * NCommander picks infinity's brain instead
[12:42] <infinity> And this is a solved problem.
[12:42] <infinity> We build d-i against backport kernels from updates.
[12:43] <NCommander> Right, I understand this
[12:43] <NCommander> but my understanding is what happens is the system is booted from the d-i build in updates
[12:43] <NCommander> Install base system happens, kernel from precise-release is added. d-i then populates /etc/apt/sources.lists, and the kernel gets dist-upgraded on the fly
[12:44] <NCommander> at least as late as oneiric, base-installer would explode if it couldn't grab a kernel deb from where it debootstrapped from
[12:44] <infinity> That would never work for the lts backport kernels, since they aren't direct version upgrades from released packages.
[12:45] <infinity> So, while I haven't looked at the code, I don't see how it could work that way.
[22:28] <stgraber> bdmurray: looking at bug 898278
[22:28] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 898278 in ubiquity "Upgrade menu option should not appear for old releases" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/898278
[22:29] <stgraber> bdmurray: did you ever reproduce it on Precise?
[22:29] <stgraber> as in, with a Precise system and using an Oneiric media?
[22:29] <stgraber> I'm still digging through the code at the moment but at least in my VM, it doesn't let me "upgrade", it only lets me reinstall
[22:31] <bdmurray> stgraber: looking
[22:31] <stgraber> I was planning on using a 11.10 media with a 12.04 install to reproduce and then fix ubiquity, but it'd be nice to actually get the bug for that ;)
[22:32] <bdmurray> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/891711/comments/7
[22:32] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 891711 in ubiquity "Fails to copy directory over symlink (e.g. /var/lock when downgrading from 11.10 to 11.04)" [High,Confirmed]
[22:32] <bdmurray> It seems like I did at one point
[22:32] <stgraber> or I'll just add a lot of debugging to ubiquity's code and try to figure out where the bug might be and why it doesn't affect me (there are a lot of FIXME's in there)
[22:33] <stgraber> yeah, I guess I'll have another look through the history for the commit that might have fixed it
[22:34] <stgraber> because there isn't much point in testing the 11.04 installer on a 11.10 system as I couldn't really fix it anyway and ubiquity changed quite a bit since then
[22:40] <bdmurray> stgraber: in ubi-partman it says
[22:40] <bdmurray>                    # TODO: Verify that the version is in fact older.
[22:41] <stgraber> bdmurray: yeah, and for some reason I never actually hit that part of the code when trying 11.10 with a 12.04 system