[00:02] <mup> Bug #1678339 opened: [2.2] Can't assign a static IP to a physical interface due to incorrect validation <regression> <MAAS:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1678339>
[00:14] <mup> Bug #1678339 changed: [2.2] Can't assign a static IP to a physical interface due to incorrect validation <regression> <MAAS:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1678339>
[00:23] <mup> Bug #1678339 opened: [2.2] Can't assign a static IP to a physical interface due to incorrect validation <regression> <MAAS:Won't Fix> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1678339>
[00:32] <mup> Bug #1678339 changed: [2.2] Can't assign a static IP to a physical interface due to incorrect validation <regression> <MAAS:Won't Fix> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1678339>


[00:03] <mlankhorst> other than that xorg needed a change to add some conflicts so you don't mix parts of the stack, some x11proto-* neeeded updates, and xrandr sru'd. that's all acceptable right?
[00:05] <Sarvatt> xrandr is easy, renamed package would be ok that has no dependencies, protos on the other hand..
[00:06] <Sarvatt> libxcb soname changes will be fun for 13.04 backports :)
[00:07] <mlankhorst> Sarvatt: no point, it's not going to break anything existing
[00:07] <RAOF> I thought we were just going to sru the x11proto-*?
[00:07] <bjsnider> a lot of stuff links to xcb
[00:07] <mlankhorst> RAOF: yeah this is just the list
[00:07] <bjsnider> i think vlc does
[00:08] <Sarvatt> hopefully xserver 1.7 never happens again when all the libs and protos need updates
[00:08] <mlankhorst> eg what's currently in https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-x-swat/+archive/q-lts-backport/+packages
[00:12] <mlankhorst> I think it makes sense to keep it as it is now with this set of renamed/unrenamed packages + xrandr
[02:17] <bryceh> RAOF, when you get a moment can you approve nvidia-common and jockey from the upload queue?  it's getting towards EOD for me today, but I'd like to get cracking on testing first thing tomorrow morning.
[02:17] <RAOF> bryceh: Certainly. I don't like writing this email, anyway :)
[02:18] <bryceh> thanks
[02:22] <RAOF> bryceh: What bug is the nvidia-common upload fixing?
[02:23] <RAOF> bryceh: The changelog suggests https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-common/+bug/976779 , but that's clearly wrong.
[02:26] <bryceh> yeah typo'd that.  The correct bug # is 1047681 for both packages
[02:32] <RAOF> bryceh: Ok, I've rejected both nvidia-common and jockey; please re-upload with the right bug reference (jockey didn't seem to have any bug reference at all). Ta.
[02:35] <RAOF> bryceh: And could you also get the changes file to include the changelog for the nvidia-common upload currently in precise-proposed, too?
[02:37] <bryceh> ok, kick out the nvidia-common I just uploaded
[02:38] <RAOF> Sorry for the delay there :/
[02:40] <bryceh> RAOF, ok new packages up
[02:43] <RAOF> Dear launchpad: FASTER!
[03:04] <RAOF> bryceh: Done. Enjoy!
[03:37] <bryceh> RAOF, thanks!!
[04:08] <tjaalton> ooh, multitouch support for wacom
[04:08] <tjaalton> intuos5 becomes useful :)
[07:46] <mlankhorst> yay
[08:30] <mlankhorst> sigh so many people trying nomodeset as a workaround, it doesn't do what they think :(
[08:32] <RAOF> It does work around their graphics working :)
[08:37] <mlankhorst> So if I want to register a blueprint for r, would that be kernel-r-dma-buf-synchronization ?
[08:45] <mlankhorst> shrug ill try
[09:39] <tjaalton> mlankhorst: sounds about right (the spec)
[09:48] <mlankhorst> yeah it's pretty much 'if you dont know what it it's for, you likely don't want to come' things
[09:54] <tjaalton> the geode maintainer agreed to drop the driver feom video-all
[09:54] <mlankhorst> ah k, upload? :D
[09:54] <tjaalton> so no need to backport it
[09:55] <tjaalton> *from
[09:55] <tjaalton> yeah, i'll upload it a bit later
[12:11] <mlankhorst> so many different nouveau bugs unique in their own way, sigh :(
[14:19] <tjaalton> mlankhorst: xorg accepted
[14:19] <mlankhorst> yay
[14:25] <tjaalton> meh, no haswell dp/edp for 3.7
[14:25] <mlankhorst> yeah I know
[14:32] <mlankhorst> oh wait did we have plans to backport that?
[14:35] <tjaalton> depends
[14:35] <mlankhorst> going to be fun with the modeset rework
[19:11] <Sarvatt> mlankhorst: i wonder if it would make sense to just SRU the -lts packages as something like ubuntu-desktop-q in a SRU to the ubuntu-desktop metapackage
[19:26] <mlankhorst> Sarvatt: well I intend to make xorg-server-lts-quantal the package for now
[19:32] <mlankhorst> add a recommends on linux-lts-quantal and a depends on libgl1 is probably enough
[21:23] <bryceh> tjaalton, happy b-day
[21:35] <Hanmac> hay i got problem messages like "[drm:radeon_cs_ib_chunk] *ERROR* Invalid command stream !"
[21:35] <Hanmac> there is my pastie: http://pastebin.com/E8491jBM an friend says that IRQ may be broken ...
[21:36] <Hanmac> my versions are: http://pastebin.com/Cf9Mpch1
[22:06] <bryceh> anyone with an nvidia card mind testing something for me?
[22:07] <bryceh> enable precise-proposed, update, and then upgrade jockey-common jockey-gtk and nvidia-common.
[22:08] <bryceh> then run jockey-gtk and verify that it gives the option to install an experimental nvidia driver (should be the last in the list)
[22:09] <bryceh> you don't have to actually install the driver (it's actually the same as nvidia-updates right now), but if you do install it and hit problems let me know.
[22:09]  * Hanmac hopes someday about an fglrx-legacy driver :(
[22:10] <bryceh> oh btw I've  tested this on my own hardware, just looking for a second independent confirmation
[22:28] <bryceh> 'tis done
[22:43] <bryceh> RAOF, LP #1047681 ready for you to take a look at.  There's one caveat I've mentioned that I'd appreciate your thoughts on, but other than that it looks good and is ready to go.
[22:49] <RAOF> bryceh: What is the failure-mode of the current jockey?
[22:50] <bryceh> standard python gui crash, ending in error message that it can't convert 'experimental-304' to an int
[22:51] <RAOF> Hurray!
[22:51] <RAOF> Hm.
[22:51] <bryceh> on the plus side, apport has no trouble catching it ;-)
[22:52] <RAOF> Heh.
[23:37] <bryceh> RAOF, so... think that crash is worth worrying about?  Anything we can do to prevent it?
[23:57] <Sarvatt> should we do a new mesa checkout or is friday for the final 9.0 going to be ok?