[12:52] <BluesKaj> Hiyas all
[15:38] <johnjohn101> what is the diff between partial upgrade and updates?
[16:19] <IdleOne> partial upgrade is when not all of the available updates can be installed for one reason or another. it is best to avoid partial upgrades when running +1, chances are it will break your install. I don't recall ever seeing a partial upgrade in a released version of ubuntu
[16:29] <johnjohn101> well, all this did was to remove a package.  So wait until it doesn't say partial upgrade?
[17:49] <[Saint]> I assume this place caters for 13.10 as well, even though that's technically +2?
[17:50] <lordievader> [Saint]: No, 13.10 is +1, 13.04 is released after all.
[17:50] <[Saint]> AH. Well...I'm behind the times.
[17:50] <lordievader> [Saint]: ;)
[17:51] <Pici> [Saint]: Ubuntu release numbers are the YEAR.MONTH of release.
[17:51] <[Saint]> That implies having a constant knowledge of the current year and month, that's a hard ask... ;)
[17:52] <Pici> If only there was some sort of electronic device that could do that for you ;)
[17:52] <IdleOne> heh
[17:53] <[Saint]> Anyhoo: The annoying nag I'm getting currently "The update information is outdated. This may be caused by network problems...etc.", currently expected, or, I blew something up?
[17:53] <IdleOne> [Saint]: could be the mirror you are using is out of sync
[17:54] <IdleOne> try switching mirror and running apt-get update
[17:57] <[Saint]> Would having Err http://extras.ubuntu.com saucy Release in the sources trigger this I wonder?
[17:57] <[Saint]> whoops. -Err, obviously. Wrong pastebuffer.
[17:58] <IdleOne> it shouldn't
[17:58] <[Saint]> apt-get is perfectly happy aside from the miss of that source, which I understand is expected.
[17:58] <[Saint]> yet a small red triangle with an exclamation mark plagues me.
[18:09] <FernandoMiguel> is python breaking apps for anyone?
[18:14] <BluesKaj> FernandoMiguel, which apps?
[18:15] <FernandoMiguel> BluesKaj: 3rd party
[18:15] <FernandoMiguel> depends on libgdk_pixbuf
[18:15] <FernandoMiguel> $ apt-cache policy libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0       Installed: 2.28.1-1ubuntu2
[18:20] <FernandoMiguel> BluesKaj or anyone, mind trying
[18:20] <FernandoMiguel> ldd /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
[18:21] <FernandoMiguel> ls /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgdk_pixbuf*
[18:27] <FernandoMiguel> pretty please?
[18:37] <BluesKaj> for ldd /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 ...No such file or directory
[18:39] <FernandoMiguel> so package is broken.... fuuu
[18:40] <BluesKaj> FernandoMiguel, for, ls /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgdk_pixbuf* , http://pastebin.com/g1sqD4YY
[18:41] <FernandoMiguel> BluesKaj: thank you
[18:41] <BluesKaj> FernandoMiguel, np
[19:58] <bjsnider> FernandoMiguel, the file you had him ldd is in the udeb, and he wouldn't have that installed
[19:58] <FernandoMiguel> bjsnider: ?
[19:58] <bjsnider> you can see the buildlog here: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/140942008/buildlog_ubuntu-saucy-amd64.gdk-pixbuf_2.28.1-1ubuntu2_UPLOADING.txt.gz
[19:58] <FernandoMiguel> bjsnider: I failed to understand
[19:59] <bjsnider> and if you search for /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
[19:59] <FernandoMiguel> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if debian/libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0-udeb/usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0.2800.1 debian/libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0-udeb/usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf_xlib-2.0.so.0.2800.1 debian/libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0-udeb/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-png.so were not linked against libpthread.so.0 (they use none of the library's symbols)
[20:00] <bjsnider> yep, look at the last of the 3 results
[20:01] <bjsnider> it's a soft link installed by the udeb
[20:01] <bjsnider> i don't see how ldd can return results on a file not installed