=== Guest24881 is now known as Logan_ === Logan_ is now known as Guest5998 === Guest5998 is now known as Logan_ === Logan_ is now known as Guest36164 === Guest36164 is now known as Logan_ === Logan_ is now known as Guest23811 === Jikan is now known as Jikai === Jikai is now known as Jikan === Jikan is now known as Jikai === Jikai is now known as Jikan === Jikan is now known as Jikai [12:52] Hiyas all === Jikai is now known as Jikan [15:38] what is the diff between partial upgrade and updates? [16:19] 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] 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] [Saint]: No, 13.10 is +1, 13.04 is released after all. [17:50] <[Saint]> AH. Well...I'm behind the times. [17:50] [Saint]: ;) [17:51] [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] If only there was some sort of electronic device that could do that for you ;) [17:52] 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 Anyhoo: The annoying nag I'm getting currently "The update information is outdated.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] [Saint]: could be the mirror you are using is out of sync [17:54] 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] 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] is python breaking apps for anyone? [18:14] FernandoMiguel, which apps? [18:15] BluesKaj: 3rd party [18:15] depends on libgdk_pixbuf [18:15] $ apt-cache policy libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 Installed: 2.28.1-1ubuntu2 [18:20] BluesKaj or anyone, mind trying [18:20] ldd /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 [18:21] ls /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgdk_pixbuf* [18:27] pretty please? [18:37] for ldd /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 ...No such file or directory [18:39] so package is broken.... fuuu [18:40] FernandoMiguel, for, ls /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgdk_pixbuf* , http://pastebin.com/g1sqD4YY [18:41] BluesKaj: thank you [18:41] FernandoMiguel, np === jimerickson is now known as jje === jje is now known as jimerickson [19:58] FernandoMiguel, the file you had him ldd is in the udeb, and he wouldn't have that installed [19:58] bjsnider: ? [19:58] 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] bjsnider: I failed to understand [19:59] and if you search for /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 [19:59] 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] yep, look at the last of the 3 results [20:01] it's a soft link installed by the udeb [20:01] i don't see how ldd can return results on a file not installed