[00:00] <micahg> I thought the dev release didn't have extras.u.c, I guess it could be smarter when a dependency can't be satisfied
[00:01] <ajmitch> the dev release doesn't, but a future rolling release scheme probably would
[00:02] <ajmitch> otherwise people are waiting up to 2 years to get apps using the new shiny code, which completely defeats the purpose of the proposal
[00:54] <achiang> why wouldn't apps get backported to LTS?
[00:55] <maxb> Why *would* apps get backported to LTS?
[00:56] <foxx> YEY - it works
[00:56] <achiang> because that's where the users are?
[00:56] <foxx> my first ever (clean?) debian package starts perfectly, installs perfectly, everything
[00:56] <maxb> Depends which apps and which users.
[00:59] <achiang> the idea of updating apps in lockstep with the underlying OS is a bit crazy.
[01:01] <ogra_> well, we have the backports repo for that
[01:01] <ogra_> though thats just an "if it builds its fine" effort
[01:02] <achiang> updated apps on stable os shouldn't be a radical idea (or stuck in 2nd class citizenry of -backports)
[01:03] <ogra_> its a manpower eating idea though ... if you want to do it with some quality ...
[01:04] <achiang> it's a manpower eating idea because the OS developers package apps on behalf of app developers. :P
[01:04] <RAOF> Well, not necesarily.
[01:04] <ogra_> right, it wont matter on ubuntu touch
[01:04] <ogra_> but thats designed radically different to the normal distro atm
[01:04] <RAOF> And in the magical convergence world it won't matter on the 14.04 desktop, either!
[01:05] <ogra_> well
[01:05] <ogra_> for touch apps it wont
[01:06] <ajmitch> apps can only get backported to an LTS if the underlying platform of the LTS has what they need
[01:07] <ogra_> buildability ... as i said :)
[01:07] <ajmitch> my concern earlier was with apps written against an old version of an API, which won't work any longer due to various changes (eg unity lenses)
[01:08] <ajmitch> plenty of times that just building isn't enough :)
[01:08] <RAOF> Yeah. We'll need to have a real honest-to-goodness _platform_, rather than the accidental aggregation of APIs we currently have.
[01:08] <ogra_> well, if youre an app developer that targets ubuntu apps (as opposed to the general archive) you will surely have to make a choice for the ABI version
[01:08] <ajmitch> currently there are at least 6-monthly releases to target
[01:08] <ogra_> not different to android
[01:08] <ajmitch> changing that to only every 2 years would be difficult
[04:37] <ScottK> ogra_: The standard for backports is builds/installs/runs.  Amazingly, we've almost never had problems with backports that could do that.
[13:11] <kurteknikk> Hi, is there anyone available ? i have a quick question.
[13:13] <tumbleweed> !ask
[13:32] <kurteknikk> Basically i would like to know if there's somewhere to follow when new package updates for ubuntu are released.
[13:33] <Laney> try the raring-changes mailing list http://lists.ubuntu.com/raring-changes
[13:35] <kurteknikk> Thanks, basically there is a new mysql version which fixes a memory leak
[13:36] <kurteknikk> so i think it's quiet important, can i submit a "request" on that mailing list ?
[16:07] <lfaraone> ScottK: uploaded #1015925 to proposed. This is currently affecting most new Ubuntu installations at MIT, so I'm eager to see this fixed :)
[18:48] <jtaylor> someone have a raring ppc and a little time?
[21:17] <foxx> i might be opening a can of worms here but.. is there any particular reason Ubuntu are taking the same approach as Windows for thier default window manager? unity really isnt great for PCs, and feels just as wrong as metro on a PC
[21:18] <foxx> on a tablet, sure it'd work great.. but surely PCs should have a different UI.. well obviously microsoft doesnt feel the same way, but does anyone know why ubuntu have taken the same approach?
[22:35] <jtaylor> arg
[22:35] <jtaylor> built scipy on ppc emulator
[22:35] <jtaylor> and installd b-d via apt-getbuild dep which is missing python ...
[22:35] <jtaylor> cython
[22:36] <jtaylor> so restart the 3 hour build ._.