User1: User2 the versions_current list is party outdated.. for instance libpciaccess is already synced but it shows the old version
User2: ok
User2: hmm, the updated chroot definitely shows 0.10.3-1 as the right version
User1: strange
User2: is this just out of sync with the archive?
User2: I did an apt-get update, and then:
User2: (mychroot)root@blackwold:/# apt-cache madison libpciaccess
User2: libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://se.archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main Sources
User2: libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://se.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Sources
User2: libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Sources
User2: libpciaccess |   0.10.5-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org experimental/main Sources
User1: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libpciaccess
User2: are you using se.?
User1: no, it's just that lp shows the new version as published
User2: I'll change mirrors
User1: yeah, for some reason se. doesn't have that
User2: ok, with it set to archive.ubuntu.com:
User2: (mychroot)root@blackwold:/# apt-cache madison libpciaccess
User2: libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main Sources
User2: libpciaccess |   0.10.5-1 | http://archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Sources
User2: libpciaccess |   0.10.3-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Sources
User2: libpciaccess |   0.10.5-1 | http://ftp.us.debian.org experimental/main Sources
User1: yep
User2: ok, rerunning  cron.  Should be updated in a few minutes.
User1: cool, thanks
User2: http://www2.bryceharrington.org:8080/X/PkgList/versions_current.html updated
User1: looks good
User2: yep
User2: hey, would you be willing to make notes on http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/PackageNotes about the packages to be merged?
User2: I don't know if I'm going to have very much time to assist with merges, but if I do I'll follow directions on that page if they're there
User1: sure, what was the syntax again?
User2: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/PackageNotes?action=recall&rev=34 shows an example
User1: ah, ok
User2: basically bullet, package-name, and comments
User2: User1 oh btw, I've been putting some stuff into https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~xorg-edgers/xorg-server/xorg-pkg-tools lately
User2: I put several xorg related scripts in there that might be useful
User2: there are README.xx files for each script explaining what they do
User1: ok, I'll have a look
User2: tormod's given me some good feedback
User2: User1 dunno if I mentioned this already, but I spent last week visiting the OEM team, who are the guys that take care of making Ubuntu run on hardware that's shipped with Ubuntu pre-installed on it
User2: it's rather stunning how many projects are under way with pre-installs.  Dell is of course the biggie, but there's a number of other companies too
User1: that's nice to hear :)
User2: yep.  It was nice to see that most of the Xorg issues they see are just weird corner cases, like issues relating to the Poulsbo driver, or multi-touch support, or similar unusualities.
User2: it's interesting that almost all of these systems are based on Hardy
 * wgrant was able to discover some details about several nice private OEM projects on LP a couple of weeks ago.
User3: I too was surprised at how many there were, though I can't have found all of them.
User1: User3 an example?
User3: One of them (the chelsea project) is a derivative for some FIC netbook, AFAICT.
User1: hum, havoc pennington working on it
User1: meeting ->
User2: User3 wow, and that's one I hadn't heard about
User2: obviously I can't say much on specifics, but the Ubuntu people there were extraordinarily overtaxed by the number of projects.  I'm a little worried that my time's going to be even more sucked up by that than previously
User3: Hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised in the next year or so..
User2: User4 btw I've a question I wonder if you might know the answer to...
User4: hi bryce
User4: how are you>?
User4: how was Lex?
User2: User4 I'm doing good!  glad for the short week :-)
User2: Lex was better than I had expected it was going to be
User2: but those guys have a huge workload.  Phear
User2: anyway, I noticed there is a +maintained-packages page for teams, which looks pretty sweet
User4: yeah, I was there the previous week.
User4: they were excited about you coming :-)
User2: however in looking at the -intel driver, it's maintained by ubuntu-dev, which seems to maintain most everything in ubuntu.  ;-)  And that page has too many packages to be of use
User2: User4 I was wondering if you knew how it is set which team maintains a given package, and if that can be changed?
User5: bryce, isn't that set by debian/control?
User2: User5 well that's what I'm wondering
User2: User4 heh, yeah they were enthusiastic on the day I arrived.  Took me by surprise...  yeah I've been putting a lot of time towards helping them on issues in recent months
User2: https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-dev/+maintained-packages   <-- I'd like this info to be available filtered to just X here --> https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-x-swat/+maintained-packages
User4: I think it is debian/control, but I can't say for sure
User4: do you just use the usual Maintainer: lines in debian/control for X packages?
User5: bryce, even if that's not the way that controls what shows up on the page (debian/control), it would be worthwhile setting it's maintainer in debian/control to ubuntu-x-swat anyway i think.
User2: User4 yep
User4: yeah, as superm1 you may want to consider marking ubuntu-x-swat as the maintainer
User2: ok, maybe something to experiment with
User2: thanks guys
User2: possibly I could reproduce that for X.org with some script.  Hmm.
User2: wow, this is cool:  http://package-import.canonical.com/loggerhead/x/xserver-xorg-video-intel/jaunty/changes
User1: I think I've already uploaded some package with ubuntu-x@ as the Maintainer
User1: hmm no, but xorg/xorg-server have it in git
User1: besides, ubuntu-x != ubuntu-x-swat, so they probably won't show on the list
User5: wgrant, when you uploaded gsd, it looks like the exact same version ended up in intrepid-proposed and jaunty release.  how did you do that?  two separate uploads, or ask an archive admin to pocket copy?
User5: i ask because i was just going to upload the final resolution for that eject bug, and got confused on how you did that
User2: User1 yeah ubuntu-x appears to be some random guy
User2: User5 btw I've sent off another 5 bugs to AMD.  fglrx-installer is pretty thoroughly triaged now
User5: bryce, great. so now just a matter of waiting for them to start fixing them :)
User2: User5 indeed
User2: User5 you might want to look into bug 291672, which seems to be a packaging issue
User6: Launchpad bug 291672 in fglrx-installer ""Proprietary Drivers" shows incorrect version if installed fglrx manually" [Wishlist,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/291672
User2: User5 I almost wontfix'd it, but figured if there's a way to detect a non-stock install, it could be worth including.  Maybe tseliot could take a natalie60@example.net.
User2: otherwise, if you think it's not worth doing, please go ahead and wontfix
User5: that bug is unbelievably hard to comprehend
User2: yep
User2: what I'm interpreting is that he downloaded fglrx off of AMD's site and installed it, and now finds that Jockey is not displaying the correct installed version
User5: jockey doesn't show versions though...
User5: i think that's right though.  the thing is the one on AMD's website didn't support intrepid anyway
User2: ok, I may have misinterpreted his explanation
User5: yeah i think marking that won't fix is sane
User3: User5 The archive admins can copy things between suites.
User5: wgrant, yeah i just had a quick chat with cjwatson about it.  it was just because the archive wasn't properly opened yet
User5: normal SRU rules apply now
User3: yep.
User3: User5 Is this about your g-s-d patch that got committed overnight?
User5: yeah
User5: i've just gotten it tested and backported to 2.24
User5: wgrant, ^
User3: User5 I see they're about to release 2.24.1. I wonder if there's anything else we might want.
User5: wgrant, you mean for an SRU?
User5: is there a schedule posted for 2.24.1?, does it basically reflect trunk, or is 2.26 work already in trunk?
User3: User5 It was branched ages ago and had some stuff (like my patch) backported.
 * wgrant checks logs for other interesting stuff.
User5: wgrant, so i'm guessing my patch is only in trunk then.. should ask upstream to put it in 2.24.1?
User3: Oh.
User3: 2.24.1 was tagged literally 3 minutes ago.
User3: So you're too late.
User5: oh well
ubuntu-x
Ubuntu IRC