[00:58] <bjsnider> nautilus 3.6 is definitely the cause of that issue
[04:37] <Takyoji> Any way to get a somewhat old AGP card working? It's some NVIDIA chipset, lspci says 'NVIDIA Corporation NV11 [GeForce2 MX/MX 400]'. I know it's not amazing, but I assume it would be better than the Intel integrated graphics chipset.
[04:40] <Takyoji> There's no options in Additional Drivers, and I'm not sure if nouveau covers the chipset
[04:43] <Takyoji> or perhaps the chipset is older than the computer itself..
[04:44] <hyperair> i don't think it covers something that old.
[04:44] <hyperair> and honestly speaking, i think my sandy bridge outstrips my nvidia geforce4 mx
[04:45] <Sarvatt> 12.04 with nvidia-96 *might* work, not sure if an nvidia-96 that works with 12.04 was ever uploaded though but one exists
[04:46] <Sarvatt> and yeah so many intel chipsets are faster than that thing, but if you have agp its not one that is :)
[04:46] <hyperair> Sarvatt: hang on, are you saying that ancient AGP chipsets are faster than intel's newer chipsets?
[04:48] <Sarvatt> opposite, if he has an agp capable one and intel is an option its not an intel thats faster :)
[04:48]  * hyperair is having trouble parsing that.
[04:48] <hyperair> if he has an agp capable one, and intel is an option, then intel isn't going to be faster?
[04:48] <hyperair> i.e. agp is going to be faster?
[04:48] <Sarvatt> yep
[04:49] <hyperair> but that's not opposite of what i said..
[04:51] <bjsnider> nv would work
[04:51] <bjsnider> if he has a board with agp graphics he probably has a very old intel chip too
[04:52] <bjsnider> since it's been 6+ years since agp slots have been on boards
[04:57] <Takyoji> I've actually tried installing nvidia-96, but there's broken dependencies
[05:00] <Takyoji> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers-173/+bug/948053
[05:10] <bjsnider> Takyoji, there's a 96 in this ppa if you want to try it: https://launchpad.net/~mati75/+archive/lubuntu
[05:44] <Sarvatt> wow nvidia-96 that works with 12.04 never got uploaded? glad theres a ppa for that at least
[05:45] <tjaalton> yeah that should get uploaded..
[05:46] <Sarvatt> there must be bugs opened for 6+ months now after it came out
[05:46] <Sarvatt> wish nvidia* wasn't something noone else can touch :)
[05:48] <tjaalton> well, if the packaging is on github it shouldn't be that hard to create a branch somewhere tseliot can pull later from
[05:48] <Sarvatt> then again theres no chance alberto will feed packaging changes upstream for the earlier packages so should be nothing to complain about, i'll bug you tomorrow to sponsor an SRU tjaalton if thats ok
[05:48] <tjaalton> sure
[05:48] <Sarvatt> need to find the bugs, i know i saw some about 96 not working in the past
[05:48] <Sarvatt> and fill out the SRU paperwork
[05:49] <Sarvatt> there was a 96 compatible with xserver 1.12 in june or july
[05:58] <tjaalton> september, according to the bug
[05:59] <Sarvatt> yeah 9/4/12 6:02:00 PM, found the bug?
[06:00] <tjaalton> the one above, it's for both -96 & -173
[06:00] <Sarvatt> (us date notation)
[14:12] <tjaalton> Takyoji: do you have a 32 or 64bit installation?
[14:16] <tjaalton> oh well, uploaded to the queue, though I don't expect anyone to push it forward before january
[16:44] <bjsnider> ricotz, found out what the problem was with mkvmerge. the desktop file is being parsed with greater scrutiny in nautilus 3.6
[19:39] <Laibsch> My netbook with intel chipset ran into a regression when updating from Ubuntu Lucid to Precise: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1087535
[19:39] <Laibsch> After an uptime of about 12 hours, X consumes 100% CPU.  I came here to ask how I can go about trying to figure out what is causing this issue.
[19:39] <Laibsch> I'm looking for help in triaging this bug.
[20:02] <tjaalton> mlankhorst: what updates do mesa/-intel need for haswell? AIUI quantal should already have all it needs
[20:03] <tjaalton> (re: bug 1085245)
[20:07] <ricotz> bjsnider, ah so the problem might be "InitialPreference=-5", making it invalid?
[20:10] <bjsnider> no
[20:10] <bjsnider> i'm going to submit a bug and a fix to get it in the record in case it happens for any other desktop files there'll be a paper trail
[20:10] <mlankhorst> tjaalton: 20.12 + 9.0.1 I thought was said, but I'll upload tomorrow
[21:12] <bjsnider> ricotz, so this is from the bug i submitted: As of Nautilus 3.6, desktop files EXEC field require field codes %U, for URL, or %F, for file, or the desktop file doesn't associate the app to its mimetypes.
[21:21] <tjaalton> ah, bugfixes
[21:26] <tjaalton> mlankhorst: ^ :)
[21:30] <tjaalton> oh Sarvatt closed it already
[21:30] <ricotz> bjsnider, ah interesting
[21:31] <bjsnider> i figure there might be more desktop files like this so i got it on the record in case the question comes up
[21:31] <bjsnider> luckily cosimoc was around to pass along the info
[21:31] <ricotz> good :)
[21:58] <bjsnider> bryce, do you want the 310 blob to go into x-updates?
[21:59] <bryce> bjsnider, yeah probably a good idea.  Seems to have proven sufficiently stable (at least, works fine for me).
[21:59] <bjsnider> it does exclude anything prior to the geforce 8 for the first time
[22:01] <bjsnider> so the 5, 6 and 7 users will upgrade and it won't work
[22:02] <bryce> bjsnider, ah good point forgot about that.
[22:03] <bryce> bjsnider, guess we'd want an nvidia-304 package to deal with that
[22:03] <bryce> otoh introducing a regression to users, probably a bad thing
[22:04] <bjsnider> modifying jockey though
[22:04] <bjsnider> so now you need a new jockey in the ppa
[22:04] <bryce> hrm
[22:04] <bjsnider> is that in quantal right now?
[22:04] <bjsnider> nvidia-304?
[22:05] <bryce> bjsnider, no, don't think it's even in raring yet?
[22:06] <bjsnider> well, it's a tricky issue
[22:06] <bryce> bjsnider, so...  I think you're convincing me to leave nvidia-current alone in x-updates; we have the experimental package for those that really want the -310 improvements
[22:06] <bjsnider> on the other hand it's a ppa and nobody's forced to use it
[22:08] <bryce> bjsnider, true but we do promise folks that we'll try to keep x-updates stable; since we know this update would break support on older cards we'd not be honoring that promise.
[22:15] <bryce> mlankhorst, thanks for working on #1043513 - do you have further ideas on the patch?  Shall I assign it your way?
[22:47] <mlankhorst> waiting on response first
[22:58] <bryce> ok
[22:59] <bryce> mlankhorst, should #1084960 be moved to the kernel or is that something that should stay against nouveau?
[22:59] <bryce> big #1084960
[22:59] <bryce> bug #1084960
[23:27] <mlankhorst> bryce: I don' t think kernel team will care, so all nouveau related bugs against nouveau would be ok
[23:27] <mlankhorst> it's on my todo list, see if i can get suspend working on fermi :-)
[23:39] <bryce> mlankhorst, alrighty