[09:18] <cking> smb, make deb-pkg INSTALL_MOD_STRIP=1
[12:07] <xnox> is peromnii readyboot stuff proprietary? as presented at korea linux forum
[12:48] <xnox> ogasawara: I am looking at the useful http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/weatherreport.html but it looks like it's still looking for quantal.
[12:49] <xnox> Can you please s/quantal/raring/ ?
[12:54] <janimo> apw, is there some doc about how to ship firmware files from a kernel package?
[12:55] <janimo> I see patches in the quantal-backport branch that add a file and touch firmware/Makefile
[12:55] <janimo> but there must be some extra scaffolding I guess
[12:55] <janimo> generating fwinfo under  abi/
[12:56] <ogra_> janimo, please dont ship the firmware in the kernel, ship it separately
[12:56] <apw> i'd be looking at that one for sure, as it must have everything you need
[12:56] <janimo> ogra_, what did that change again?
[12:56] <ogra_> i thought that was clear since last week
[12:56] <janimo> apw, yes it has everything I just don't know what exactly to look at
[12:56] <janimo> ogra_, to me it seemed we do it the fastest via kernel and decide later if we want to reorganize
[12:56] <apw> janimo, i know of no docs indeed.  rtg did the work and has been waking up about now :)  so i'd poke him
[12:57] <ogra_> janimo, unless you know how to hack up the kernel packaging to also show license debconf notes etc
[12:57] <janimo> apw, thanks
[12:57] <janimo> ogra_, the thing was discuseed last meeting and that we do not need to show anything on package install
[12:57] <janimo> just in the installer or on cdimaer
[12:57] <ogra_> if we have to show it in the installer we need to show it at package installation
[12:57] <janimo> according to achiang 
[12:58] <ogra_> people can install the package on any arm system to use/inspect it 
[12:58] <ogra_> if we have to show the license at install time there is no way around to show it at package install time
[12:58] <apw> damnable binary junk
[12:58] <ogra_> if we dont have to show it at package install tiome we dont need to show it in the installer either
[12:59] <ogra_> as i understood it we need to show it if we distribute the files 
[12:59] <janimo> ogra_, I am not sure about what to show when, just that it was decided at last meeting I ship it in the kernel package and if anyting comes up later we fix that
[12:59] <ogra_> so the license needs to be shown for any way we distribute 
[12:59] <ogra_> janimo, remember i had hangout issues last meeting
[13:00] <janimo> ogra_, that was not my impression after all the back and forth talk honestly, but I would not be surprised by another change of stance
[13:00] <ogra_> but if we dont show it on package install time i will drop the WI for the installer too
[13:00] <janimo> ogra_, yes, drop it I'd say
[13:00] <janimo> and we can put it back if someone request it
[13:00]  * ogra_ thought everything was clear after the longish discussion on IRC 
[13:00] <janimo> victorp I think had the final word
[13:00] <janimo> and I think achiang too agreed
[13:00] <janimo> nothing is clear when it comes to 'damnable binary junk'
[13:01] <ogra_> and neither of them is around 
[13:02] <janimo> I just hoped copying frimware files in the tree would just install them, but as this is kernel packaging things are not that simple
[13:03] <ogra_> just use a .install file
[13:03] <ogra_> though i really think we should keep the closed firmware separate from the open kernel
[13:04]  * xnox though linux-firmware-nonfree was the package for blobs....
[13:05] <ogra_> xnox, yes, but that is generated from our kernel tree
[13:05] <ogra_> which we dont use in nexus7 
[13:05] <ogra_> linux-firmware-nonfree-nexus7 is what we should have imho
[13:05] <ogra_> and meta depending on it
[13:07] <xnox> sounds sensible.... but then I don't do kernel packaging.
[13:07]  * ogra_ only does it if teher is no way around it :)
[13:09]  * henrix -> lunch
[13:16] <apw> herton, i see in your original drafts of the 3.5-stable thing it was ubuntu/linux-stable.git, but in your announcement i see ubuntu/linux.git ... i wonder at the change
[13:17] <herton> apw, it's where you/rtg recomended last week to put the branches on, at ubuntu/linux
[13:18] <apw> herton, i don't recall that, i recall being asked if that tree was safe to use as a --reference
[13:18] <apw> i don't recall discussing where to put those branches, or more specificially i didn't realise that was what i was discussing
[13:18] <smb> apw, It was what I understood in that discussion
[13:19] <apw> well crap, sounds like i wasn't listening very well
[13:19] <smb> Or the two of us... ;)
[13:20]  * janimo also does kernel packaging if there's no way around it :)
[13:20]  * apw reads the logs ... ok i only said about reference and then didn't comment again
[13:21] <apw> clearly i didn't listen at all :)
[13:21] <apw> to add to the discussion, my only worry is that i have been storing all the u* tags in there which might be very confusing for anyone looking at the repo for stable stuff
[13:22] <herton> yeah I don't know, it's not immutable, I can change the URL later, and put the right one when I start to do the releases if needed
[13:23] <apw> i guess i could evict those to another repo as well
[13:23] <herton> I mean, we can revisit where we put things if needed
[13:28] <apw> herton, while on the subject do you have a tag naming scheme in mind, are you just going to use v3.5.x or something else
[13:29] <herton> apw, what I plan is v3.5.7-ext.<number>
[13:29] <herton> ext meaning "extended"
[13:30] <apw> that feels difficult, i wonder if we could just use v3.5.8u or u3.5.8 and onwards
[13:30] <apw> though that last would clash with my naming
[13:31] <apw> though we could ask for the v3.5.x range from greg and just use that
[13:32] <BenC> apw: Too quick…I was starting dput with the right change...
[13:32] <BenC> I'll exit and merge yours
[13:32] <apw> BenC, hopefully i did it right
[13:32] <herton> apw, well the only reasoning I chose that is to reflect more reality, we are not upstream stable, and if they unlikely decide to release a new v3.5 we don't clash. I think Greg will ignore us as always, or deny the use of v3.5.y
[13:32] <apw> as it takes a long damn time to build
[13:33] <BenC> If only it had picked the other buildd, it would have been half the time…two flavours used to take only 2.2 hours on that buildd, so 4 flavours shouldn't take 8 hours :/
[13:33] <apw> we never get lucky
[13:33] <BenC> Thanks for the upload though
[13:34] <apw> BenC, it was a mostly selfish action to try and get britany to be happy, but you are welcome
[13:34] <apw> BenC, dunno if it makes sense for me to have rights on your repo so i can help in these siturations; your call
[13:34] <BenC> apw: as long as I can pull from ubuntu-raring:ppc it all works out just as well
[13:35] <apw> ack
[13:35] <BenC> apw: do you have a github account?
[13:36] <apw> BenC, yeah awhitcroft
[13:37] <apw> BenC, also while i think about it, do you have a repo for -meta or is that just apt-get source job
[13:37] <BenC> apw: I've added you to the repo
[13:37] <apw> BenC, thanks, i will try not to need to use it
[13:38] <BenC> apw: added you to that repo as well
[13:39] <apw> herton, so ... perhaps v3.5.7u1 u2 etc
[13:39] <apw> something nice and short
[13:41] <herton> works for me, that's ok as well
[13:42] <herton> and looks nicer indeed
[13:59] <BenC> ogasawara: linux-ppc exists now, btw
[14:00] <ogasawara> BenC: ack, thanks.  I'll have jsalisbury look at moving bugs over tomorrow when he's back from today's holiday.
[14:00] <BenC> Thanks
[14:13] <apw> herton, remind me how i check whether i have applied things to the right bits in hardy, there is a magic incantion
[14:13] <herton> apw, hmm let me check, I have to remember as well :)
[14:13] <apw> must be validate-patch-range
[14:14] <apw> herton, ahh got it ...
[14:14] <apw> apw@dm:~/git2/ubuntu-hardy$ debian/scripts/misc/validate-patch-range HEAD^ HEAD
[14:14] <apw> f1b33e80f6bcc2f6b3c7edc4ceafab5466fbd33c: not ported to openvz
[14:14] <apw> f1b33e80f6bcc2f6b3c7edc4ceafab5466fbd33c: not ported to xen
[14:14] <herton> apw, and use apply-patch-to-binary-custom to apply them
[14:14] <herton> then just fold the changes on top
[14:15] <apw> herton, awsome ... works like a charm
[14:16]  * smb wonders how much sense those make, but well if there is a simple way to get them
[15:28] <caribou> smb, got a question about the SRU query I just sent to the list
[15:28] <caribou> or anyone else that care to answer
[15:29] <smb> So let it hear and we let you know whether we care :)
[15:29] <caribou> regarding hpwdt, should I have included a diff of the config files instead of just listing the config options ?
[15:29] <caribou> smb :)
[15:30] <caribou> smb: since I supposed that those options would end up being setup by editconfigs anyway
[15:30] <smb> caribou, Usually its nice to have the patch as well. Just for life being simpler that way
[15:31] <caribou> smb: yeah, thought of it as well but wasn't too sure which config files was targeted precisely
[15:31] <caribou> smb: ok, will  do next itme
[15:31] <caribou> s/itme/time/
[15:31] <smb> Probably having them added to the main ubuntu configs file and run updateconfigs and then check the result
[15:32] <caribou> smb: ok will do
[16:40] <BenC> apw: Almost a winner…fixing it now
[16:40]  * apw cries
[16:42] <BenC> apw: I disabled pccard in my last upload and didn't remember that d-i would be affected. Is there a way to disable a d-i package for just one flavor?
[16:45] <BenC> Honestly, I don't think pcmcia even matters on any of the powerpc flavours for udeb's
[17:07]  * ppisati -> gym
[18:27]  * henrix -> EOD
[22:17] <kees> apw: any thoughts on my checkpatch change on lkml for the CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL removal warnings?