lubuntu-qa team mailing list archive

[Phill Whiteside <PhillW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Colin,

what else can I say, but WOW! thank-you ever so much for taking the time
out to have a look at these issues. As soon as the rebuilds hit, do please
poke the lubuntu-qa team so that the ppc testers can get onto them.

@ Adam, as you know the 'X' issue and have access to kit would you be
prepared to make an exception to not testing 12.10 and having a chat with
the #ubuntu-x people? I can raise the issue, but with no kit to back up
testing of any debug reports that they need I'm a bit stuck. Else can you
give some guidance as to what our current ppc testers should be talking to
them about?

Thanks,

Phill.


On 24 September 2012 01:12, Colin Watson <cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 04:22:21PM +0100, o jordan wrote:
> > I don't see any value in rolling back to A-3 or even rolling back
> > specific packages (e.g. the xserver radeon driver which is the change
> > that did it) to A-3.
>
> It's entirely unrealistic anyway over such a long time period.
> Individual packages over a relatively short time period, sure, if they
> are known to be the cause; the entire X stack (given that alpha-3's
> Radeon driver package was for a different version of the X server with
> an incompatible ABI) across two months, not so much!
>
> Reverting changes that cause regressions is sensible in many cases.  But
> the point of it is to get us back to a more stable state, not to spend
> ages undoing an enormous amount of work and take us into a new
> substantially-different combination of software that nobody has ever
> tested before.
>
> > PowerPC can install fine.  It can install fine on radeon.  It just
> > needs a yaboot parameter applying.  It is how to comunicate this
> > information to the user that is the problem.  People just don't read
> > information that is given to them.
>
> It's long been a guiding principle of Ubuntu that users shouldn't have
> to set boot parameters by hand.  If you've got to the point of
> identifying which specific package version change is responsible, it
> might not be so much harder to narrow it down to a particular
> (presumably upstream) change, so that the X team can arrange for this to
> work by default.
>
> > But, honestly, it is a really easy
> > problem to overcome and I don't think a big deal needs to be made of
> > it. I'm much more interested in getting things like
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-cdimage/+bug/1051313 and
>
> Applied, thanks.
>
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/1043066 fixed.
>
> I've applied the patch to yaboot-installer and uploaded, but it may be
> too late for beta-2 and it will need a separate ubiquity upload as well
> in any event.
>
> > The problem is with the changes that have been made
> > to the xserver-xorg-video-radeon package this config now drops you
> > into 8 bit graphics (forcing you this time to use a yaboot parameter).
> > What is happening is that the radeon xorg driver detects drm is
> > unavailable and unloads itself and the fbdev diver is used instead
> > (for some reason this defaults to 8 bit).  This didn't used to happen.
> > You could certainly ask the question if it is possible to have KMS
> > without drm?  Not being a graphics expert, I don't know if that is a
> > stupid question or not.
>
> The right answer, then, is to ask a graphics expert. :-)  Try #ubuntu-x.
>
> > I can't explain it any clearer.  Unless you can have KMS without drm,
> > then the only choice is do you remove radeonfb for 12.10 or not.
> > Either way, the boot message on the CDs needs to be updated and the
> > timer removed so that people have a chance to read the new message.
>
> As I tried to explain on IRC, I'm extremely wary of updating the boot
> message until I have acknowledgement from the X team (or kernel team if
> necessary) that there's no other way.  Boot messages that explain that
> people have to set boot parameters are not something we like to do if at
> all possible.
>
> >  Does non-PowerPC Lubuntu suffer from this bug?  Basically a previously
> installed Lubuntu is labelled as Ubuntu in grub/yaboot:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/os-prober/+bug/950914
>
> I've followed up to this bug.  But, in short, it has existed in some
> form since the very first Ubuntu flavour was created in 5.04, and there
> is no good reason to consider it any more important now than it was
> then.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx]
>



-- 
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phillw