[01:14] <phillw> cjwatson: infinity do the flavors that do not 'subscribe' to 12.04.1 / 12.04.02 get the 'core' updates as part of normal updating?
[01:39] <cjwatson> phillw: yes
[01:39] <cjwatson> it would be pretty hard to stop them
[10:03]  * cjwatson eyes an image build failure on amd64
[10:04] <cjwatson> (before psivaa notices :-) )
[10:05] <cjwatson> good grief, is it February already
[10:06] <psivaa> :), but there is an amd64
[10:06] <psivaa> image i mean
[10:09] <cjwatson> psivaa: mm, with a stale livefs though
[10:14] <psivaa> cjwatson: ok, i dont know the impact of this, but the image has passed the default smoke tests including a manual installation
[10:16] <cjwatson> if it's not broken for you yet, don't worry then :)
[10:16] <cjwatson> but I'll fix it anyway, since it'll go wrong eventually
[10:21] <cjwatson> impact: the image doesn't actually have new software
[10:21] <psivaa> cjwatson: ok yes just noticed amd64 images have 3.8.0-2-generic whilst the i386 have 3.8.0-3-generic :)
[10:21] <cjwatson> I think it's just bad luck with upload timing, actually
[10:21] <cjwatson> I'll poke a respin
[10:21] <cjwatson> linux-meta was uploaded in the right kind of time period, and there's probably a window where the live task is wrong in the archive
[11:01] <cjwatson> ok, that respin seems to have worked, or at any rate hasn't complained at me
[11:11] <psivaa> cjwatson: ok, will use the latest. thanks
[15:37] <cjwatson> Wait.  What?  libxkbcommon generates shlibs with *exact version* dependencies?
[15:37] <Laney> grim, eh?
[15:38] <cjwatson> Huh, it's in 0.1.0~0-1's changelog
[15:38] <Laney> We were just discussing that in #-desktop - I pinged tjaalton for comment
[15:38] <cjwatson> "Since users are likely to be only XServer and Wayland, that shouldn't be too much of a hassle."
[15:38] <Laney> I believe that's a hangover from when it was really expereimental
[15:38] <cjwatson> So, uh, yeah, I guess somebody's going to reupload gtk+3.0 ...
[15:39] <Laney> We'll take care of it, but I'd like it to be after fixing the shlibs
[15:39] <cjwatson> Depends how long the latter takes, I guess
[15:39] <Laney> sure
[15:40] <Laney> Surprised this didn't get caught at MIR time though
[17:02] <infinity> Laney: It was totally caught at MIR time as a feature. :P
[17:02] <infinity> Laney: "Looks fine. The packaging is great. No symbols file, but it specifies a strict -V arg for dh_makeshlibs. Builds fine. Even has a bug subscriber!"
[17:02] <Laney> Hah :P
[17:03] <infinity> (Were it a -V of just the upstream version or something, that wouldn't bug me terribly, though symbols files are much saner to guard against regressions and such)
[17:03] <Laney> that's what we have in u3 now
[17:05] <infinity> Laney: The symbols file in -0ubuntu3 is surely a lie...
[17:06] <infinity> Laney: Not that I guess partial upgrades are a big concern, but I assume most of those symbols should be tagged 0.1.0, not 0.2.0
[17:06] <Laney> I didn't look at it. What's the problem?
[17:07] <Laney> Maybe. I'm not sure I care all that much for the two rdeps that are already broken.
[17:08] <infinity> Yeah, it's not really a big deal, I suppose.  I'm just the sort of anal retentive perfectionist who would have gone back in time and generate my symbols file on 0.1.0, then updated it for 0.2.0.
[17:08] <infinity> With absolutely zero benefit.
[17:09] <Laney> I'm sure tjaalton would love a patch. :P
[17:10] <tjaalton> well, there never was a 0.1.0
[17:10] <tjaalton> 0.2.0 is the first release
[17:11] <tjaalton> that doesn't mean 0.1.0~ didn't have any symbols..
[17:11] <tjaalton> so I could fix that, but it's probably not urgent?-)
[17:13] <infinity> tjaalton: Not only is it not urgent, it's pointless.
[17:13] <tjaalton> :)
[17:13] <infinity> tjaalton: Since the only reason to have a symbols file that lists 0.1.0's symbols is to allow people to install 0.1.0 to satisfy the dep.  Which we probably don't want anyway.
[17:14] <tjaalton> right
[17:14] <infinity> tjaalton: I was just being mildly anal about the documentation of symbol history, I guess. :P
[17:14] <tjaalton> hehe
[17:14] <infinity> I do find that, with a few rare examples like glibc, Debian symbols file are often one of the better references for "this symbol was added in version $foo".
[17:16] <Laney> http://upstream-tracker.org/ is quite neat
[17:17] <infinity> Laney: Ooo, neat, I've never seen that before.
[22:49] <phillw> ScottK: from the OP --> Devon Tourond : Thanks 
[23:40] <ScottK> phillw: You're welcome.
[23:53] <phillw> well, we don't often get a 'thank you' back from OP's, So I wanted to share that one with you :)