[04:48] <micahg> ok, pushed up a branch which should hopefully make amd64 precise ISO size again
[04:48] <micahg> *alternates
[04:48] <Unit193> Alternates?
[04:48] <micahg> yeah, precise had them
[04:48] <Unit193> Just noted, my bad.
[04:54] <micahg> knome: which of the following should I drop from i386 on precise: de fr bn hi zh-hans ja, not sure if I should go by size of population since we might have a lot of users in europe
[04:54] <micahg> everything else should be ISO size in the morning
[04:56] <micahg> knome: hrm, did we want the backport kernel on our ISOs?
[10:12] <knome> micahg, i'd say your call
[10:12] <knome> micahg, are you on the xubuntu-users mailing list?
[10:18] <ochosi> micahg, knome, mr_pouit: i know we've (kinda) discussed this several times (and i feel the ML is not the right place), but aren't you getting tired of fighting with iso-size for a few mbs all the time? /just_sayin
[10:21] <knome> yes, but i don't think keeping precise SRU iso's is a matter for discussion
[10:21] <ochosi> i'm not really referring to that (ofc that's what triggered my comment)
[10:23] <knome> you might be right that it's not worth to try to target a CD for 14.04
[10:24] <astraljava> I suppose if you're not wanting to target users with hardware incapable of booting from other media than optical.
[10:25] <ochosi> astraljava: dvds are also optical
[10:25] <astraljava> ochosi: Ok, sorry. Yes, that's true. I should have included the "and with limited bandwidth."
[10:26] <ochosi> well yeah, but limited bandwidth means you better order a cd/dvd anyway
[10:26] <astraljava> But then of course it depends on how much larger you wanna go.
[10:26] <ochosi> not sure 800mb vs. 1000mb is really the straw that breaks the camel's neck
[10:26] <ochosi> i'd go for a 1gb image
[10:26] <knome> no, definitely not
[10:27] <astraljava> That much, not really, no. But when you let yourself loose, who's to say how rapidly it begins to increase.
[10:27] <knome> i am.
[10:27] <ochosi> astraljava: no reason to do that ;)
[10:28] <astraljava> No, not really. But it happens. :)
[10:28] <ochosi> knome: personally i'd consider trying out 1gb image-size with 13.10, as it's not lts we could gather some feedback and decide what's best for 14.04
[10:41] <knome> ochosi, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/Roadmap/Specifications/S/ISOSizeTransition
[10:56] <Unit193> If we do that, should document how to use plop with Xubuntu, so they can boot from cd/iso of plop, then flash drive.
[10:57] <knome> at least nobody is stopping anybody doing that :)
[11:59] <ochosi> we can also document how to install xubuntu on top of xubuntu-server/minimal
[11:59] <ochosi> eer
[11:59] <ochosi> ubuntu-server
[12:00] <knome> doesn't help those with low bandwidth though
[12:01] <ochosi> well at some point they'll have to download packages
[12:01] <ochosi> whether before installing or after installing isn't that important imo
[12:01] <knome> sure. but you can't download packages as a torrent
[12:03] <ochosi> true, but i don't see how that is different from getting updates later on
[12:03] <astraljava> Someone ought to write a plugin for apt to do that.
[12:05] <ochosi> not sure, maybe there is a way to combine mirrors in a torrent-y way
[18:21] <micahg> knome: not on xubuntu-users, I guess if we get the quantal backport stack for free, it's not bad
[18:22] <micahg> ochosi: well, I'm not the XPL
[20:06] <Noskcaj> is there any reason why the 13.04 installer still says 12.10 when loading?
[20:10] <mr_pouit> I forgot to bump the version in the xubuntu-text plymouth theme
[20:11] <mr_pouit> (done now, thanks, will be part of the next xubuntu-artwork upload)
[20:11] <Noskcaj> next question, why is there no installer background?
[20:11] <Noskcaj> at least in Vbox
[20:17] <Noskcaj> sorry to keep question spamming but, for a "light" distro, why does bug 1087409 exist?
[20:21] <xnox> Noskcaj: do you happen to have graphics cards that require proprietary drivers? or can have them?
[20:28] <Noskcaj> xnox, why? 
[20:32] <micahg> xnox: does ubiquity wait to download the extra stuff?
[20:41] <Noskcaj> xnox, i'm just running it in a VM, so will the info still help?
[20:42] <xnox> Noskcaj: sure. see my comment on the bug report. it's best to get the output from the user who saw 3 minute delay.
[20:43] <Noskcaj> ok
[20:43] <xnox> Noskcaj: above command is just a theory as to why the next step is delayed.
[20:43] <xnox> it takes 11 second to run on my machine =/ but I don't know if it's parallelised or not
[20:44] <Noskcaj> it's more sometimes, it just seems to be that it loads something fairly big then, rather than in the install
[20:58] <Noskcaj> xnox, done
[21:04] <micahg> mr_pouit: maybe change the version output to be lsb_release based/
[21:10] <xnox> Noskcaj: that's quite special =) I'm struggling to figure out how long it took in total. something like 1m21s?
[21:11] <Noskcaj> ok, the bug is universal, but only shows up on slow machines, you can guess why
[21:11] <Noskcaj> that's roughly how long
[21:43] <mr_pouit> micahg: yeah, I know I should do that (but there's always someone to notice the version number and report it here so it's fine =)
[22:58] <ochosi> micahg: yeah i know you're not. just didn't feel like pinging only knome