[09:43] <tseliot> mamarley, ricotz: does the patch for linux 4.6 apply correctly in the 367.35 driver for you? It seems to fail here
[09:45] <tseliot> mamarley, ricotz: oh, it's commented out, never mind
[12:02] <ricotz> tseliot, make sure to make it 4.7 compatible ;)
[12:02] <ricotz> which will likely land soon in yakkety
[12:20] <tseliot> ricotz: yes, I'm going to upload 367 with support for that. I also need to fix up the legacy drivers
[13:05] <tseliot> the legacy drivers both build against 4.7
[13:13] <ricotz> tseliot, iirc it was drm related
[13:14] <tseliot> ricotz: yes, it was, for 367. You never know what breaks in the kernel though ;)
[13:14] <tseliot> ok, 367 uploaded
[13:25] <mamarley> It will be interesting to see if GCC6 busts the kernel module build.
[13:28]  * tseliot is not looking forward to that...
[13:40] <ricotz> tseliot, remember when patching the uvm module is needed it breaks on non-amd64
[13:41] <ricotz> tseliot, where did you upload it?
[13:41] <ricotz> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers-367
[13:42] <tseliot> ricotz: 367 needs to be approved by an archive admin first
[13:42] <ricotz> ah it is in the new-queue
[13:42] <tseliot> it's in yakkety-proposed NEW
[13:42] <tseliot> yes
[13:43] <ricotz> I hope you used the ppa tarball
[13:43] <tseliot> I did
[13:43] <tseliot> I always check
[13:43] <ricotz> good :)
[13:48] <ricotz> tseliot, did you understood the note above?
[13:49] <tseliot> ricotz: this one? "patching the uvm module is needed it breaks on non-amd64"
[13:49] <ricotz> yes
[13:49] <tseliot> I'm on the call, so, I can't really check
[13:49] <tseliot> *a call
[13:49] <ricotz> +--- a/kernel/nvidia-uvm/uvm_linux.h
[13:49] <ricotz> ++++ b/nvidia-uvm/uvm_linux.h
[13:50] <ricotz> ^ this wont be available on non-amd64 module builds and therefore make the patch-apply fail
[13:50] <tseliot> err... I'll think of a solution
[13:50] <ricotz> dkms_nvidia.conf might have a mechanism to check
[13:51] <tseliot> if it doesn't I'll use a macro in the code
[13:51] <ricotz> turning on PATCH_MATCH will at least prevent problems on <4.7
[13:52]  * ricotz totally forgot about that issue
[13:53] <tseliot> I think there is a check in the code
[13:53] <tseliot> #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(4, 7, 0)
[13:54] <ricotz> no, to prevent the patch to be applied
[13:55] <tseliot> ok, I see what you mean
[15:08] <tseliot> ricotz: I have a fix, and I'm going to test/upload it soon
[15:29] <tseliot> ok, uploading to a PPA for testing...
[22:44] <tjaalton> RAOF: hi, do you remember why mesa ships libGL.so link pointing to mesa/libGL.so? means that it's always there, no matter what ldconfig knows
[22:44] <RAOF> tjaalton: I do not recall that, no.
[22:45] <RAOF> tjaalton: If I were to guess, it would be to satisfy the OpenGL Linux ABI.
[22:45] <tjaalton> right
[22:45] <RAOF> Which requires that /usr/lib/libGL.so exist.
[22:45] <tjaalton> there's bug 1609110
[22:45] <tjaalton> wine is unhappy, but i'd say just cripple wine now too
[22:45] <RAOF> Why that's hardcoded to point at mesa rather than being an alternative dependent on the master update-alternatives state is not in my memory.
[22:46] <tjaalton> well it has to point somewhere :)
[22:46] <tjaalton> though it could be via alternates too, right