[01:06] <Pici> '14.04' still looks weird to me... then again, I still catch myself writing 2013 in dates.
[03:03] <phunyguy> Pici: I do the same thing with 2010, 2011, and 2012.
[03:03] <phunyguy> can't help it
[08:02] <bazhang> html seems to offer very random/poor advice
[08:02] <bazhang> use wine and windows tool to create usb installer
[08:09] <DJones> Yesterday he posted a message about asking people who wanted to talk about LInux etc, to pm him for the ip address of his mumble server
[08:10] <bazhang> yikes
[08:10] <DJones> Only a couple of times, he did stop of his own accord before anybody needed to ask him to stop
[08:11] <bazhang> doesn't seem to be malicious afaict, just terribly misinformed
[08:13] <DJones> yeah agree with that, I'd say 'enthusiastic and learning'
[08:13] <bazhang> :)
 dafuq
[08:17] <bazhang> super bad news
[08:17] <ikonia> is he known ?
[08:17] <bazhang> aka "littlefoot"
[08:17] <ikonia> that rings a bell
[08:17] <bazhang> not smallfoot
[08:17] <bazhang> much worse
[08:17] <ikonia> oh
[08:25] <yossarianuk> hi - I was banned from #ubuntu and #ubuntu-release-party for posting a link to the 14.04 final .iso on release day - unlike many other people I was actually posting the coorrect link (from releases.ubuntu.com)
[08:25] <yossarianuk> how can I get unbanned ?
[08:25] <ikonia> yossarianuk: you where not posting the correct link
[08:26] <ikonia> and you where told NOT to post it multiple times
[08:26] <ikonia> yet you continued to post it
[08:27] <yossarianuk> ikonia: it has the correct md5sum.
[08:27] <ikonia> that was not the point
[08:27] <ikonia> yossarianuk: where you the release manager /
[08:27] <ikonia> yossarianuk: did you know when it was safe to release it to the general public ?
[08:28] <yossarianuk> ok - well in that case I apologise - it was on the offical ubuntu servers and was uploaded on the release day
[08:28] <ikonia> you where told not to do it in release party 2 times kicked and banned, so you joined #ubuntu and started doing it AFTER I'd already told you "not to do it"
[08:29] <ikonia> 2014-04-17T15:18:25 <ikonia> yossarianuk: so don't so it then as it's not released
[08:29] <ikonia> you then went on to post it again
[08:30] <ikonia> I'm happy to remove the ban for you in #ubuntu
[08:30] <ikonia> however keep in mind - when you are told not to do something - don't keep doing it, don't join other channels and do it
[08:30] <ikonia> if you have any questions, join this channel and ask or pm the person asking you not to do it and ask
[08:30] <ikonia> do you understand ?
[08:31] <yossarianuk> ikonia: yes I do
[08:32] <ikonia> yossarianuk: I've removed the ban for you in #ubuntu, so if you /part this channel and /join #ubuntu you should be set
[08:32] <ikonia> please remember what I've explained to you in this channel
[08:34] <yossarianuk> ikonia: sure - I wasn't try to be malicious btw.
[08:35] <ikonia> I understand that, however your actions cause a problem
[08:35] <ikonia> I have no idea why you keep being told not to do it, yet you chose to ignore that and keep doing it
[08:35] <yossarianuk> and yes I do get why you want the .iso to be offically released before 1000's of people downloaded it.
[08:36] <ikonia> ok, so if people ask you not to do something, then tell you to stop doing it, I suggest following it rather than continuing, getting banned, joining other channels and continuing
[08:36] <ikonia> they are asking you then telling you to stop for a good reason/they have more information than you at that time
[08:36] <yossarianuk> ikonia: ok - got you.
[08:36] <yossarianuk> and thanks
[08:36] <ikonia> thank yo
[08:37] <ikonia> you
[08:37] <yossarianuk> I personally use kubuntu for desktop anyway although do use ubuntu servers at work (so its useful being able to access irc..)
[08:37] <ikonia> not sure how that matters
[08:38] <yossarianuk> and  you never know I do actually try to go out my way to help people also sometimes....
[08:38] <yossarianuk> ok cheers
[08:38] <bazhang> no surprise with littlefoot
[08:38] <ikonia> based on your comments, I saw no reason to try to negotiate after his comments to cfhlowett
[10:51] <ikonia> hello zetheroo
[10:51] <ikonia> sorry, didn't see you join as I was talking to someone
[10:52] <zetheroo> bazhang: I am sorry for the name-calling in #ubuntu ... but ikonia has been giving me hell since just recently - and I don't know why per se! Last time I was asking for help he was giving me a real tough time telling me I was using "bad habits" and telling me to read the Ubuntu Guide etc ... he carried on like this for 15min or so ... and when I showed him that what I was doing WAS according to the Ubuntu Guide he then backed off ... and now he is at my
[10:52] <ikonia> zetheroo: let me clarify
[10:52] <ikonia> zetheroo: you cross-posted your question, no problem, I politely asked you not to do it
[10:53] <ikonia> you then cross-posted a random made up thing about ubuntu not being production ready
[10:53] <zetheroo> is cross-posting breaking a rule!?
[10:53] <ikonia> I banned you from #ubuntu-server as you don't seem to get the no cross-posting
[10:53] <bazhang> yes
[10:53] <ikonia> zetheroo: yes, thats why I asked you not to do it
[10:53] <ikonia> and you ignored it
[10:53] <ikonia> and got banned
[10:53] <bazhang> !crosspost | zetheroo
[10:53] <zetheroo> well what if you post a question one place and wait for a while and get no reply?
[10:53] <ikonia> you didn't wait
[10:53] <zetheroo> can you still not post it in another room?
[10:53] <zetheroo> I DID WAIT!!!
[10:54] <ikonia> a few minutes
[10:54] <zetheroo> not hours ... but I waited!
[10:54] <zetheroo> yes
[10:54] <ikonia> a few minutes is not really waiting
[10:54] <zetheroo> so whats the "time" that one has to wait!?
[10:54] <ikonia> people could still be typing / waiting for a response
[10:54] <ikonia> however, after I asked you NOT to do it
[10:54] <ikonia> you then did it both channels seconds apart
[10:54] <zetheroo> I did not see you asking me ...
[10:54] <zetheroo> yes, the LAST line
[10:54] <zetheroo> wow shocking!!
[10:55] <ikonia> it is shocking to be asked not to do something and then you do it again
[10:55] <ikonia> I agree
[10:55] <zetheroo> delay ... maybe I did not see your request!?
[10:55] <ikonia> maybe,
[10:55] <zetheroo> maybe I posted it and then saw it seconds later (this is what happened)
[10:56] <ikonia> doubtful, but very possible
[10:56] <zetheroo> and by then your tearing into me for having suggested that 14.04 may not be totally ready for production deployment yet ... at least not in my case ...
[10:56] <zetheroo> and then next thing I know you ban me!?
[10:56] <zetheroo> come on!!
[10:56] <ikonia> no, I didn't tear into you
[10:56] <zetheroo> yes you did!
[10:56] <ikonia> I asked you not to make statements you have no understanding about it
[10:56] <zetheroo> Like it's a henious crime to suggest such a thing
[10:56] <ikonia> then you argued, so I TOLD you not to do it
[10:56] <ikonia> you then called me an asshole
[10:57] <ikonia> so you got banned
[10:57] <zetheroo> I did not call you an asshole
[10:57] <ikonia> what did you call me then
[10:57] <zetheroo> I asked why the asshole attitude ...
[10:57] <bazhang> zetheroo, lets move past that please
[10:57] <ikonia> at that point I'm out
[10:57] <zetheroo> ikonia: then leave ... but why ban me!?
[10:57] <zetheroo> and I used ** :D
[10:57] <ikonia> you can't even understand that asking why the asshole attitude suggest you are an asshole
[10:58] <ikonia> F**k **f
[10:58] <zetheroo> shoe fits!?
[10:58] <zetheroo> HA!!
[10:58] <bazhang> zetheroo, your ban was correct, lets move past that
[10:58] <ikonia> do you understand what that means ?
[10:58] <ikonia> that's exactly the same as what you've just done
[10:58] <ikonia> and continuing to call me an asshole won't help resolve anything
[10:59] <zetheroo> well if I ask something and ikonia asks "what are the zombie processes" and I say "I don't know" - and then he treats me like a moron ... uhm ... yes ... if a new LTS release is having issues like this it's not exactly production ready .... no!?
[10:59] <zetheroo> There appear to also be issues with RAID ...
[10:59] <ikonia> no, that's not correct
[10:59] <zetheroo> which I experienced earlier ... and which suddenly vanished
[10:59] <ikonia> if you have a problem, and you don't know what it means/what harm it's doing/not doing - that doesn't make it "not production ready"
[11:00] <ikonia> you have no idea what the problem is - which is fine, but cross posting "ubuntu is not production ready" isn't really the truth or valid
[11:00] <ikonia> more so when you don't even know what the problem is
[11:00] <zetheroo> so for me to "suggest" that booting into a fresh install of 14.04 with zombie processes may be a serious issue ... I don't think that is something to mock
[11:00] <ikonia> no-one is mocking it
[11:00] <ikonia> it may be a serious issue, it maybe nothing
[11:01] <ikonia> it maybe something specific to you or to everyone
[11:01] <zetheroo> so it's the fact that I cross-posted  "ubuntu is not production ready" is what set you off then!?
[11:01] <zetheroo> ha
[11:01] <ikonia> but as everyone is not reporting it it's more likley to be something to do with you or a smaller group than everyone
[11:01] <zetheroo> don't like the suggestion that it ain't perfect ... ;)
[11:01] <ikonia> so the normal thing is to work the problem through
[11:01] <ikonia> zetheroo: I don't care if ubuntu is perfect or not, I rarely use it,
[11:02] <ikonia> so it causes me no personal problem for you to think it not production ready
[11:02] <zetheroo> so whose ass do I need to kiss to get back onto the #ubuntu chat?! Actually since all the pros are here ... maybe I don't need to be bothered ... :P
[11:02] <ikonia> however giving out wrong information, cross-posting when asked not to, and calling people assholes thats what got you banned
[11:02] <zetheroo> ikonia: so whya re you acting hurt that I cross-posted that sentence?!
[11:02] <zetheroo> nevermind
[11:02] <ikonia> I'm not acting hurt at all
[11:03] <ikonia> as I said, I don't care
[11:03] <ikonia> (personally)
[11:03] <zetheroo> so whats the "law" concerning readmission!?
[11:03] <ikonia> I do care that you give people the wrong information, more so when you have no idea about the problem you are claiming makes it not production ready
[11:03] <ikonia> I do care that you cross-post your questions, and keep doing so when asked not to
[11:03] <ikonia> I do care that you call people assholes
[11:03] <zetheroo> do I have to submit a form?
[11:03] <ikonia> I do care that you appear to not grasp any of this and try to look for a reason / smart answer such as "who's ass do I kiss" to get it resolved
[11:04] <bazhang> jrib is back!
[11:04] <zetheroo> no, you care that I had the audacity to call your attitude asinine! ;)
[11:04] <ikonia> ok, so you keep going with the asshole stuff
[11:04] <ikonia> so I suggest you leave now, and think about why you are getting banned, and not getting unbanned
[11:05] <zetheroo> ikonia: I have no issue with helping and being helped by people in the IRC rooms ... but people who only answer you to mock you and tell you that what your doing is whats wrong etc ... that is a waste of my time! - And you seem to do that more and more these days ...
[11:05] <ikonia> zetheroo: no-one has mocked you
[11:06] <zetheroo> heh ... riiiight
[11:06] <ikonia> no-one is mocking you
[11:06] <zetheroo> you railing at me for 15 min the other day ...!?
[11:06] <zetheroo> that was just "friendly banter" ...
[11:06] <ikonia> no, telling you not to depend on bad habbits is not mocking you
[11:06] <zetheroo> LOL
[11:06] <ikonia> if you see that as mocking, fair enough
[11:06] <zetheroo> nevermind
[11:06] <ikonia> ok, bye
[11:07] <zetheroo> who has the right/power to readmission me to the #ubuntu channel?
[11:07] <ikonia> anyone in this channel
[11:07] <k1l> zetheroo: i dont see we can resolve that issue right now. please take some time to let the emotions calm down and come back in here to talk about that issue in a not that heated manner.
[11:07] <ikonia> however I suspect based on the conversation just shown and your inability to stop calling people assholes throughout the conversation, it won't be undone at the moment
[11:08] <jrib> hello bazhang
[11:08] <bazhang> hi jrib
[11:09] <zetheroo> k1l: I already agreed that it was my bad for cross-posting.... and that I should not have called ikonia's attitude asinine! ... what more needs agreeing to!?
[11:09] <zetheroo> but I would like clarification on this cross-posting thing ... how much time must pass between posting in one room and then into another!?
[11:10] <k1l> zetheroo: just right now it seems to me that undo the ban will more start a timebomb. so please let some time path by to calm down the emotions on this. we can talk about the ban later on when not every word is interpreted as the worst case.
[11:11] <zetheroo> also, my comment regarding 14.04 and it's readiness for production-level deployment was also due to generally not feeling it was as stable as 12.04.4 ... strange goings on etc with fresh installs ...
[11:12] <zetheroo> k1l: can't you just say that ikonia and myself should keep our distance for a while!? - and let me play with the others ... ?
[11:12] <zetheroo> I promise to keep my distance from ikonia ... and to play nice with the others ... :)
[11:14] <zetheroo> k1l: and what about the cross-posting question ...
[11:15] <zetheroo> it's really too bad because I remember ikonia back years when i was just getting started with Linux ... I always thought of him/her as being a top person to get help from ... :-/
[11:16] <k1l> zetheroo: as is said before twice. i dont see a point to discuss that in that state of heated emotions.
[11:16] <k1l> so please take a day off and come back to reveal the ban when emotions are settled again
[11:16] <zetheroo> to discuss the cross-posting !? or readmission?!
[11:16] <zetheroo> my emotions are settled ...
[11:17] <zetheroo> so whose emotions are we talking about!? :P
[11:17] <k1l> zetheroo: last time now: please come back when its calmed down. you are still ad hominem so i stop right here
[11:17] <bazhang> see you in 48 hrs zetheroo
[11:18] <zetheroo> "ad hominem" !?
[11:18] <zetheroo> Sorry, I don't understand ...
[11:18] <bazhang> zetheroo, come back here to discuss in 48 hrs
[11:18] <zetheroo> so I am banned for 2 days!?
[11:18] <k1l> ad hominem means you attack people. please come back in 48 hours.
[11:18] <zetheroo> who am I attacking!?
[11:19] <bazhang> we will discuss that upon your return zetheroo there is not set time
[11:19] <zetheroo> did you take this as an "attack": t's really too bad because I remember ikonia back years when i was just getting started with Linux ... I always thought of him/her as being a top person to get help from ... :-/
[11:19] <zetheroo> That was NOT meant as such...
[11:20] <bazhang> zetheroo, our discussion for now is over, come back in 48hrs please
[11:20] <knome> zetheroo, going on won't help with your cause, so i would also advise to come back
[11:20] <knome> +later
[11:20] <zetheroo> wow - so political ... :(
[11:21] <knome> in other words: go away now
[11:21] <knome> if you want the less political version.
[11:22] <zetheroo> this has been very educational
[11:23] <zetheroo> I would still like to know who I am still attacking ... since your asking me to stay away from 48 hrs is based on this allegation ...
[11:24] <bazhang> the 48 hrs is the time until you return here to discuss the lifting of the ban
[11:24] <ikonia> zetheroo: don't worry, I don't see it as a personal attack, so I'm happy to clarify that
[11:25] <bazhang> continuing to argue *now* will not help that zetheroo
[11:25] <zetheroo> I am not discussing the lifting of the ban, I am discussing the 48 hrs...
[11:25] <bazhang> yes, see you then
[11:25] <zetheroo> bazhang: what is the 48hrs based on!?
[11:26] <zetheroo> just some arbitrary timeframe?
[11:26] <bazhang> zetheroo, a time to cool off
[11:26] <knome> zetheroo, stop arguing and leave. otherwise i can see somebody extending that time.
[11:26] <zetheroo> as I already said, and have displayed, I have "cooled off" and I apologized  and promised to play nice (as I have done for years!)
[11:27] <knome> zetheroo, it doesn't give a "cool" impression you when you prove you can't listen to what people are saying and act accordingly
[11:28] <zetheroo> knome: so basically if you say so then it goes - and if anyone questions it or asks for a reason they are in even more trouble ... !?
[11:28] <zetheroo> Again, me having just written that is probably seen by you as "disrespectful" and now I am probably in even more trouble ...
[11:28] <knome> just leave
[11:29] <zetheroo> and having just said that even more ...
[11:29] <zetheroo> LOL :D
[11:29] <bazhang> zetheroo, see you in 48 hrs
[11:29] <zetheroo> ikonia: oh, just saw what you said - thanks! ;)
[11:30] <zetheroo> bazhang: why? are there more people who are not "cooled off" enough!? 8-)
[11:30] <knome> zetheroo, i don't know what the original issue is, and i don't analyze in what tone you say things or don't. i'm looking this from the side and it looks like you should leave now than continue arguing
[11:31] <zetheroo> knome: but why!? because I was arbitrarily told to, without reason!?
[11:31] <zetheroo> other than "cool off" and "ad hominom" ... or something ...
[11:33] <zetheroo> is ikonia not "cooled off"? is he/she attacking me!? - not from where I am standing ...
[11:33] <zetheroo> so what's the holdup!?
[11:34] <Tm_T> zetheroo: please leave now and return later as asked
[11:35] <zetheroo> Maybe now that you have all told me to come back in 2 days you have to stick to it no matter what - otherwise you think you will loose face ... hmmm ...
[12:25] <ikonia> hello zetheroo
[12:25] <zetheroo> hi
[12:25] <ikonia> thank you for re-joining
[12:25] <zetheroo> sure
[12:26] <ikonia> so we've had a good chat now for 20 minutes, and I think it's safe to say all is well and there will be no-more problem ?
[12:26] <zetheroo> we have smoked peace pipe ... ;)
[12:26] <zetheroo> yes
[12:26] <ikonia> so I'll cut the 48 hours short as I feel the conversation was pretty honest and easy to resolve and I'm confident there won't be any more issues
[12:27] <ikonia> give me 30 seconds to just remove it
[12:27] <zetheroo> thank you kindly
[12:27] <ikonia> ok, the bans removed so if you /part this channel, and join #ubuntu you should be "ok" to go, just keep in mind what we discussed
[12:27] <ikonia> (please_)
[12:28] <zetheroo> ok, I think it's working again ..
[12:29] <zetheroo> I still seem to be banned from ubuntu-server
[12:33] <zetheroo> ikonia: did I do something wrong? :(
[12:35] <ikonia> ooh missed that
[12:35] <ikonia> sorry, only did ubuntu
[12:35] <ikonia> hang on
[12:35] <zetheroo> ok
[12:38] <ikonia> that should work for you now
[12:43] <zetheroo> yes!
[12:43] <zetheroo> great - thanks
[12:43] <ikonia> no problem
[13:43] <ikonia> is there any way to raise this on the ubuntu 14.04 main page that lts -> lts won't happen until 14.04+1
[13:43] <ikonia> it's not really cricket to not make this clear
[13:46] <DJones> Its certainly being asked quite often
[13:46] <DJones> !LTSupgrade is LTS to LTS upgrades are not offered automatically until the .1 release has been issued.  Ubuntu 14.04.1 is due for release on 27th July, and you will only see an option to upgrade from 12.04 to 14.04 after that date.
[13:46] <ikonia> it's something I'd like to know without having to ready 100 pages
[13:47] <DJones> ikonia: You do have to dig quite a bit to find anything out like that on the website, I've struggled to find anything
[13:48] <ikonia> considering how important it is, I'd like to see it clearly displayed
[13:48] <ikonia> is there any way to raise this as a bug to the canonical web team
[13:49] <DJones> !LTSupgrade is LTS to LTS upgrades are not offered automatically until the .1 release has been issued.  Ubuntu 14.04.1 is due for release on 24th July, and you will only see an option to upgrade from 12.04 to 14.04 after that date. See http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2014/04/17/ubuntu-14-04-trusty-tahr-released/
[13:50] <DJones> I think that fridge posting is the only reference I've seen to the delay until the .1 release
[13:54] <DJones> Also, is there a supported method of upgrading early
[13:55] <Pricey> DJones: update-manager -d I believe for varying definitions of "supported"
[13:57] <DJones> Pricey: I thought that may be one way, although I'd be wary of it given that the '-d' is development and would suggest that its not a final release
[13:57] <Pricey> !ltsupgrade | DJones
[13:57]  * Pricey hides
[13:58] <ikonia> what happens when 14.10 gets released
[13:58] <ikonia> shouldn't -d take it to that or does the lts tag stop that
[13:58] <ikonia> gets opened, not released
[13:59] <DJones> ikonia: That was what I was thinking
[13:59] <ikonia> it should go to 14.10, but I'm not sure if the lts tag override it
[14:23] <phunyguy> ikonia: it depends on your update-manager settings
[14:23] <phunyguy> but at a minimum your upgrade path will be 12.04 -> 14.04, regardless
[14:24] <phunyguy> ...it's the next step.
[14:24] <ikonia> phunyguy: what restricts it in update-manager ?
[14:24] <k1l> the update manager just goes to the next release.
[14:24] <ikonia> the LTS->LTS setting ?
[14:24] <phunyguy> just like 12.04 -> 13.10, you have to go 12.04 -> 12.10 -> 13.04, etc
[14:24] <phunyguy> yeah
[14:24] <ikonia> does that make it ignore 14.10 ?
[14:24] <phunyguy> yes
[14:24] <ikonia> (relative)
[14:25] <ikonia> so until 15.X the next LTS release gets an open repo -d should be safe ?
[14:25] <phunyguy> do-release-upgrade -d with you only having lts releases allowed, will not prompt until 16.04 is in dev
[14:25] <phunyguy> right
[14:25] <ikonia> is that confirmed anyewhere as that wasn't how 10.04->12.04 worked
[14:25] <phunyguy> I ran into this when I wanted to go 12.04 -> 12.10 back in the day
[14:25] <ikonia> -d just went to $next
[14:26] <phunyguy> since I only had LTS -> LTS in the settings, even with -d, I never got an upgrade.  I had to change the settings to notify for any release, not just LTS
[14:26] <ikonia> ok, so it should be "safe"
[14:26] <phunyguy> yes, it should be.
[14:26] <ikonia> I guess it's easy to test when the 14.10 repos get hit
[14:27] <ikonia> opened
[14:27] <phunyguy> yeah, shouldn't be long now
[14:30] <phunyguy> could test with 10.04 server
[14:31] <phunyguy> feed it -d, see what it says
[14:31] <ikonia> give it a shot
[14:31] <ikonia> I know it took me to the 10.10 release
[14:31] <ikonia> (the last time I tried it)
[14:32] <phunyguy> downloading
[14:32] <ikonia> good sport
[14:33] <phunyguy> I am going to put money on it bumping to 12.04
[14:33] <ikonia> that would be cool
[14:33] <ikonia> ...or would it, as 12.04 is not development
[14:34] <phunyguy> well there is no dev release for 10.04 upgrade anymore
[14:34] <phunyguy> either way, 12.04 is the next step.
[14:34] <ikonia> exactly, so should it go to 12.04
[14:34] <ikonia> as 12.04 is not dev
[14:34] <phunyguy> we will see.
[14:34] <phunyguy> if it just complains, then it's still safe
[14:35] <phunyguy> 9 mins left on download.
[14:35] <phunyguy> one of the only places that I have worked at, that has slower internet than I do at home.
[14:37] <phunyguy> what is the difference between -d and -p..?
[14:44] <ikonia> I'd have to read the man page on that
[14:44] <phunyguy> installing
[14:44] <ikonia> exciting
[14:44] <phunyguy> it is pretty fun
[14:45] <phunyguy> I'll leave this VM at 12.04 after upgrade, so we can test when 14.10 comes out
[14:45] <ikonia> well, I was being a little sarcastic, but I am intersted in knowing it's behaviour
[14:45] <phunyguy> err gets released
[14:50] <phunyguy> aahhh 10.04.   This takes me back.  :)
[14:52] <phunyguy> running a dist-upgrade first
[14:57] <phunyguy> ikonia: -d still wants to give me 12.04
[15:00] <ikonia> I don't know if that's good or bad
[15:00] <phunyguy> well... it's the next step...
[15:00] <ikonia> but should it be....
[15:01] <ikonia> (I've not got the man page open)
[15:01] <phunyguy> even when 14.04.1 upgrade path opens, 10.04 would still have to go to 12.04 first
[15:01] <ikonia> I mean -d is the "development" release
[15:02] <ikonia> so should -d take you to a stable branch ?
[15:02] <ikonia> I've not got the man page to check the exact wording on it
[15:02] <Pici> "Check if upgrading to the latest devel release is possible"
[15:02] <ikonia> so from my point of view, -d is wrong
[15:03] <phunyguy> probably... but what is it hurting?
[15:03] <phunyguy> technically there is no dev release for 10.04 upgrade anymore
[15:05] <ikonia> it's basically hacking a command and upgrade process
[15:05] <ikonia> which in my eyes a distro targeting itself as an enterprise distro, shouldn't be doing
[15:05] <phunyguy> I don't disagree.... but it still isn't hurting anything.
[15:06] <ikonia> I disagree, it's breaking the command
[15:06] <ikonia> and creates confusion
[15:07] <phunyguy> I disagree.  In my eyes, -d means "Check for the latest release, and include $dev_branch in the check"
[15:07] <ikonia> that's not what the man page said as pici quoted
[15:07] <ikonia> the man page is the usage of the command
[15:07] <ikonia> Pici: what's the -p ?
[15:07] <funkyHat> So someone should fix the man page
[15:07] <phunyguy> maybe the man page needs a reword then
[15:07] <Pici> "Try upgrading to the latest release using the upgrader from Ubuntu-proposed"
[15:07] <ikonia> funkyHat: I don't think it's a break in the man page
[15:07] <ikonia> it appears to be ubuntu trying to break the funcitonality/work around it
[15:08] <ikonia> or create a new flag
[15:08] <ikonia> update-manager -l
[15:08] <ikonia> update to new lts release
[15:08] <funkyHat> Break which functionality?
[15:08] <ikonia> which removes the need for the LTS only/non-lts
[15:08] <ikonia> funkyHat: -d = upgrade to development release
[15:08] <ikonia> you are not upgrading to a development release, you are updating to a stable lts release.
[15:09] <funkyHat> But -d doesn't ever upgrade to a development release unless you're one release behind it anyway, so I think the description is wrong, not the action
[15:10] <ikonia> funkyHat: are you sure ?
[15:10] <funkyHat> 80%
[15:10] <phunyguy> ikonia: do-release-upgrade assumes you already want do upgrade.  adding -d means "check if updating to dev is possible".
[15:10] <phunyguy> I think it reads pretty correct.
[15:11] <phunyguy> if it is not possible, you would go to stable instead.
[15:11] <ikonia> I don't see it, I guess clarification on the wording would be needed
[15:12] <phunyguy> you are issuing the command.... to upgrade your OS.  adding -d allows it to use the dev release if available.  The man page says exactly that.
[15:13] <ikonia> if possible - so should do nothing if not possible
[15:14] <ikonia> it's just not good wording
[15:14] <ikonia> so k1l_ is probably write to clarify it in the man page
[15:14] <ikonia> (or docs)
[15:14] <phunyguy> I /really/ disagree after reading through this and considering it.
[15:15] <k1l_> ?
[15:15] <funkyHat> http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/precise/man8/do-release-upgrade.8.html at least this version is quite reaonable
[15:15] <funkyHat> reasonable
[15:17] <funkyHat> "Check if upgrading to the latest devel release is possible" sounds right to me. Perhaps a longer note explaining that it will still try a stable upgrade if one of those is also available would help some people, but I think it's probably fine how it is
[15:18] <phunyguy> also, /etc/update-manager/release-upgrades  <--- specify in that file whether or not to stick with LTS, or any release.
[15:18] <funkyHat> I think the assumption regardless of any options you specify is that it's going to do an upgrade, expecting it to give up on an available upgrade because you asked it to try a dev release could be seen as a funny expectation
[15:19] <phunyguy> funkyHat: I agree with that
[15:19] <ikonia> not if there isn't a development or one available
[15:19] <ikonia> if you do -p does that work /
[15:19] <ikonia> phunyguy: any chance you could test that
[15:19] <ikonia> as by that logica -p should (hopefully) behave the same
[15:19] <phunyguy> I forgot to snapshot the 10.04 install, so I would have to reinstall
[15:19] <ikonia> oops
[15:19] <ikonia> sorry
[15:19] <phunyguy> my faulkt
[15:19] <phunyguy> -k
[15:19] <ikonia> didn't mean to dump install test on you
[15:20] <ikonia> -p should check for proposed updates, fail
[15:20] <ikonia> phunyguy: ahh
[15:20] <ikonia> phunyguy: wait, try it from 14.04
[15:20] <phunyguy> well I guess I can do that in 12.04
[15:20] <ikonia> oops
[15:20] <ikonia> 12.04
[15:20] <ikonia> try it from 12.04
[15:20] <ikonia> so do-release-update -p should fail, and move to 14.04
[15:20] <phunyguy> already, performing reboot after upgrade
[15:20] <ikonia> as it will check, there is no proposed, and move to 14.04 as the next option
[15:21] <ikonia> phunyguy: it worked ?
[15:21] <ikonia> -p found 14.04
[15:21] <phunyguy> hang on
[15:21] <phunyguy> "No release found" for just -p
[15:21] <ikonia> ok so then it's wrong
[15:21] <ikonia> it doesn't just move on
[15:21] <ikonia> it is -d = development only
[15:21] <ikonia> otherwise it would check for proposed, fail and move on
[15:22] <funkyHat> I think -p is to do with upgrading the do-release-upgrade package before doing the upgrade, not about a 'proposed' release
[15:22] <funkyHat> So they aren't really comparable
[15:22] <ikonia> that's not what the man page says
[15:22] <phunyguy> yeah I think so too
[15:22] <ikonia> check for proposed updates
[15:22] <phunyguy> "using the upgrader from "ubuntu-proposed"
[15:22] <funkyHat> Yeah, proposed updates of the current release. There's no such thing as a proposed release
[15:22] <ikonia> so does that mean update to proposed packages before updating to the current stable ?
[15:23] <ikonia> even so it should then see no proposed updates, fail and move to 14.04
[15:23] <ikonia> in the same way no devel updates and move to 14.04
[15:23] <phunyguy> it just means check the updates repo for a proposed version of the upgrader
[15:23] <funkyHat> *that* option could definitely do with an improved description in the man page
[15:23] <ikonia> phunyguy: ok, it does that, fails, and moves to 14.04....but doesn't move to 14.04
[15:23] <ikonia> -d is for development releases only
[15:23] <ikonia> not development and then move on
[15:23]  * phunyguy is getting confused
[15:23] <ikonia> or -p would do the same
[15:24] <phunyguy> there is no new proposed updater... and it doesn't look like that package has been updated in some time
[15:24] <ikonia> phunyguy: agreed, but then it should check, so no updates and move on to 14.04
[15:24] <funkyHat> ikonia: actually I still think the way it is now makes most sense. If you're specifying -p it (should) mean you know what you're doing and you think there's an update in -proposed which you're trying to test
[15:24] <ikonia> by the same logic as the -d option
[15:24] <ikonia> funkyHat: -d assumes you should know what you're doing moving to a development release.
[15:25] <funkyHat> If you're specifying -d and you're on 12.04 or 13.10 that means you don't know what you're doing and actually you do want to upgrade to a later release than the one you're on
[15:25] <phunyguy> ikonia: I didn't spedify -d with that command
[15:25] <ikonia> phunyguy: no you shouldn't
[15:25] <phunyguy> they are referring to two different things
[15:25] <ikonia> phunyguy: I was just asking you to check p
[15:25] <ikonia> -p
[15:26] <ikonia> sorry they are not different things
[15:26] <phunyguy> oh, sorry, it's just the man page that has been the same since 2009
[15:26] <phunyguy> ikonia: -p refers to the do-release-upgrade tool itself.  Check for a new version of that in ubuntu-proposed.
[15:26] <ikonia> phunyguy: right, then do the upgrade
[15:26] <ikonia> phunyguy: so it checks, doesn't find one, and then should upgrade
[15:27] <ikonia> the same as -d checks for development, doesn't find one and does the upgrade
[15:27] <ikonia> from what you are saying
[15:27] <phunyguy> ikonia: there is nothing to upgrade to
[15:27] <phunyguy> (with -p)
[15:27] <ikonia> phunyguy: yes there is
[15:27] <ikonia> 14.04
[15:27] <phunyguy> /headdesk
[15:27] <phunyguy> let me rephrase
[15:27] <phunyguy> there is no do-release-upgrade PACKAGE to upgrade.
[15:27] <ikonia> right
[15:28] <ikonia> so it should find nothing - move on and carry on
[15:28] <ikonia> in the same way -d checks for development, finds nothing, carry on
[15:28] <funkyHat> I don't think so, -p is an expert option for people wanting to test a -proposed version of do-release-upgrade, blidnly doing a regular upgrade when there isn't one will just annoy the people using -p
[15:28] <phunyguy> I don't udnerstand what you are arguing about....
[15:28] <ikonia> funkyHat: -d is an expert option for people wanting to check for development releases.
[15:28] <phunyguy> understand*
[15:29] <ikonia> funkyHat: doing an update to a non-development release when using -d should annoy people too
[15:29] <ikonia> it should find no development release and complain
[15:29] <phunyguy> ikonia: apparently it just annoys you... lol
[15:29] <ikonia> or behave consistantly with other options such as -p
[15:29] <funkyHat> -d on the other hand is used by many people, and a much more sensible default is for it to do an available upgrade if there is one. If someone is asking if there's a devel release and they are still on an oldstable release how likely are they to *not* want to upgrade to the current (or newer) stable?
[15:29] <phunyguy> ikonia: you erally are missing the idea here with the command.
[15:29] <ikonia> phunyguy: I'm not annoyed, I'n just trying to get correct information for people
[15:29] <phunyguy> really*
[15:30] <ikonia> as for years we've told users -d is for development versions
[15:30] <ikonia> we are telling them "it's not, it's for stable releases too"
[15:30] <phunyguy> well we have been telling them wrong for years then
[15:30] <ikonia> phunyguy: no, I'm not missing the point, I'm just not trying to dodge a bad implmentation
[15:30] <funkyHat> ikonia: I think being consistent in this case would hinder, not help, usability
[15:30] <ikonia> funkyHat: being conisstent in ANY case is the correct thing to do
[15:30] <ikonia> developming a correct option would be the process
[15:31] <phunyguy> do-release-upgrade -d means "upgrade, and allow it to go to the dev release if it is available"
[15:31] <ikonia> phunyguy: -p means upgrade and use the proposed installer if possible
[15:31] <phunyguy> not "ONLY go to dev release"
[15:31] <phunyguy> right
[15:31] <ikonia> phunyguy: however the behaviour is not consistant
[15:31] <ikonia> if it doesn't find a dev release - it carries on
[15:31] <ikonia> if it doesn't find a proposed installer, it stops
[15:31] <phunyguy> and if you don't specify -d, it will use the proposed installer if possible, and go to the stable release.
[15:32] <phunyguy> (if available)
[15:32] <ikonia> phunyguy: but it stops if it's not available
[15:32] <phunyguy> which is exactly what it is doing.
[15:32] <ikonia> where as it doesn't stop if -d has no dev release.
[15:32] <ikonia> to be honest, I think this is made up
[15:32] <funkyHat> ikonia: because they are not comparable options
[15:32] <phunyguy> ikonia: it stops if i DON'T specify -p.
[15:32] <ikonia> I think -d is for dev releases, canonical are putting in a fudge to get around the delay in upgrade
[15:32] <phunyguy> because... there is no release available.
[15:32] <ikonia> but thats just my personal opinion
[15:33] <phunyguy> ikonia: remember, this is 12.04
[15:33] <phunyguy> not 10.04
[15:33] <ikonia> phunyguy: right,
[15:33] <phunyguy> ...so there is no upgrade for 12.04 yetr without -d
[15:33] <phunyguy> regardless of -p
[15:33] <ikonia> why ?
[15:33] <ikonia> why do you need -d to upgrade to a stable release
[15:33] <phunyguy> because it's not available until 14.04.1
[15:33] <ikonia> phunyguy: I know why
[15:33] <ikonia> but from that man page - why
[15:33] <phunyguy> because that's not what the option means
[15:33] <ikonia> no it doesn't
[15:34] <ikonia> where does it say "upgrade to stable release"
[15:34] <ikonia> if thats the case do-release-upgrade on it's own should work
[15:34] <ikonia> don't need to check for a development release
[15:34] <phunyguy> "Upgrade the operating system to the latest release from the command-line", and adding -d means "if the release is still in development, still allow it"
[15:35] <ikonia> phunyguy: right, so without the -d it should still work
[15:35] <phunyguy> ikonia: in 12.04?
[15:35] <ikonia> phunyguy: as from your explaintion, it checks for development, see's no development release so goes to stable
[15:35] <ikonia> yes
[15:35] <ikonia> it's upgrading to 14.04 stable correct ?
[15:35] <phunyguy> NO
[15:35] <phunyguy> because it's not available yet
[15:35] <ikonia> what's it upgrading to then ?
[15:35] <phunyguy> NOTHING
[15:35] <phunyguy> that's what I have been saying
[15:35] <ikonia> with -d it's doing nothing /
[15:36] <ikonia> ?
[15:36] <phunyguy> you cannot upgrade to 14.04 yet without the -d option, because it's not a stable upgrade yet
[15:36] <funkyHat> LTS-LTS upgrades generally aren't made available straight away, maybe that's why?
[15:36] <ikonia> phunyguy: please - you are making things up
[15:36] <phunyguy> yes that is exactly why
[15:36] <ikonia> funkyHat: I know the reason it's blocked
[15:36] <phunyguy> ikonia: are you serious?
[15:36] <ikonia> but that does not conform to that command
[15:36] <IdleOne> Why is it blocked?
[15:36] <ikonia> phunyguy: is 14.04 a stable or a development release.
[15:36] <ikonia> IdleOne: to allow for stability/patch fixes
[15:37] <ikonia> LTS = stable production
[15:37] <ikonia> no-one wants broken upgrades
[15:37] <funkyHat> IdleOne: LTS-LTS upgrades are always a few days/weeks after the official release of the new LTS
[15:37] <ikonia> moths
[15:37] <ikonia> months
[15:37] <ikonia> what is it 4 weeks ?
[15:37] <ikonia> or less
[15:37] <phunyguy> no
[15:37] <ikonia> (I don't remember the date)
[15:37] <funkyHat> Can't remember
[15:37] <phunyguy> it is 14.04.1 release
[15:37] <hggdh> probably on 14.04.1
[15:37] <phunyguy> july 24th
[15:37] <IdleOne> yes I know. What I don't know is what mechanism is making it so apt knows and waits for 14.04.1
[15:37] <ikonia> 14.04.1
[15:37] <funkyHat> Oh ok
[15:37] <phunyguy> I have been saying that for 20 minutes now
[15:37] <ikonia> IdleOne: there isn't one
[15:37] <ikonia> so when is 14.04.1 out ? june ?
[15:38] <ikonia> it just doesn't work
[15:38] <phunyguy> JULY 24TH
[15:38] <IdleOne> July 24
[15:38] <ikonia> ahh so a month or two
[15:38] <hggdh> right now you can -d, but this will probably break when we start the U cycle
[15:38] <phunyguy> hggdh: no it won't.
[15:38] <ikonia> hggdh: not according to phunyguy's test on 10.04 -> 12.04
[15:39] <phunyguy> that's where all of this started
[15:39] <ikonia> which is great, but tagging 14.04 as development is just poor
[15:39] <ikonia> and a dirty work around
[15:39] <hggdh> indeed
[15:39] <phunyguy> ikonia: that part I agree with.
[15:39] <ikonia> thats exactly what I've been saying
[15:39] <ikonia> -d should not be taking you to a stable tree
[15:40] <phunyguy> why?
[15:40] <ikonia> because it's -d development
[15:40] <ikonia> and it's taking you to a stable tree as a work around
[15:40] <phunyguy> ok, well that's not what the option means
[15:40] <phunyguy> it's not black and white
[15:40] <ikonia> it is
[15:41] <ikonia> 14.04 is being tagged as development to work around the 14.04.1 block
[15:41] <hggdh> well, it *was* black and white until this release
[15:41] <ikonia> if it wasn't tagged as development the do-release-upgrade on it's own would work
[15:41] <phunyguy> it really isn't.  "Do the upgrade, and allow it to use the dev release"
[15:41] <ikonia> phunyguy: ok, then why is it only working with -d
[15:41] <IdleOne> ikonia: thing is that when you use -d from 12.04 LTS it takes you to what it considers an unstable tree because the stable tree in LTS upgrades is the .1 release
[15:41] <ikonia> IdleOne: that .1 branch doesn't exist
[15:41] <ikonia> it's taking you to the stable repo
[15:42] <ikonia> IdleOne: so it should go no-where
[15:42] <ikonia> no development one at all
[15:42] <ikonia> which means it must be tagged as development
[15:42] <hggdh> yes. The meaning of "development" and "stable" has been slightly adjusted
[15:42] <ikonia> (from my admittdly limited knowledge of how the repo tagging works)
[15:42] <ikonia> massivly adjusted
[15:42] <IdleOne> ikonia: somehow when it comes to LTS the upgrade-manager knows that .1 is not yet released and still sees 14.04 as dev
[15:42] <phunyguy> wasn't 8.04 and 10.04 like this as well?
[15:42] <hggdh> ikonia: I was just being ironic, sorry
[15:42] <Pici> I just did some source-diving, and it looks like the -p and -d options in at least the trusty version of do-release-upgrade do exactly the same thing.
[15:42] <ikonia> IdleOne: yeah, because it's tagged as dev
[15:43] <ikonia> phunyguy: no, when I first did the 10.04->12.04 test it didn't work
[15:43] <ikonia> Pici: no no, that's impossible
[15:43] <ikonia> Pici: they are different commands
[15:43] <ikonia> etc
 sorry
[15:43] <ikonia> poor show
[15:43] <phunyguy> ...
[15:43] <ikonia> (from me)
[15:44] <IdleOne> ok. so as it pertains to LTS upgrades the definition of development has been modified.
[15:44] <phunyguy> IdleOne: and that is not new.
[15:44] <ikonia> I don't know when it changed
[15:44] <ikonia> must have been somewhere between 10.04 and 12.04 release.
[15:44] <ikonia> (from what phunyguy is saying and showing with his tests)
[15:45] <IdleOne> probably, that I am not sure of.
[15:45] <funkyHat> ikonia: so you want a new option to upgrade to LTS.0, because you don't like the sound of LTS being considered a devel release just for this purpose? Sounds like consistency really is worse in this case
[15:46] <ikonia> funkyHat: I want consistancy yes
[15:46] <ikonia> I don't see how conistancy is a bad thing at all
[15:46] <funkyHat> At the expense of unnecessary extra command line options?
[15:46] <ikonia> giving consistant solid information to people
[15:46] <ikonia> rather than changing
[15:46] <ikonia> well, -d works here, but not here, and here it will break your system
[15:46] <phunyguy> "It is generally recommended that users of Ubuntu 10.04 LTS wait until the first point release, due in August, before upgrading."
[15:46] <IdleOne> I agree that it can be confusing even for the most experienced users.
[15:46] <ikonia> so 3 different behaviours for -d
[15:46] <phunyguy> because of the recommendation, they made it a -d upgrade until then
[15:47] <phunyguy> so they changed it with 12.04
[15:47] <funkyHat> ikonia: it's called overloading
[15:47] <ikonia> funkyHat: I don't think so
[15:47] <ikonia> I think it's just sloppy
[15:47] <funkyHat> So how would you have people test an LTS-LTS upgrade before 14.04.1 is out?
[15:47] <phunyguy> ikonia: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin/ReleaseNotes/UbuntuDesktop/UbuntuDesktop-12.04#Upgrading_from_Ubuntu_10.04_LTS_to_Ubuntu_12.04_LTS
[15:48] <ikonia> funkyHat: with a correct flag
[15:48] <Pici> FTR: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/trusty/update-manager/trusty/view/head:/UpdateManager/Core/MetaRelease.py#L104
[15:48] <funkyHat> ikonia: so like I said, you want an extra option, when -d can't mean anything else in this context anyway?
[15:48] <ikonia> funkyHat: -d has multiple context
[15:48] <ikonia> which is not consistant
[15:48] <ikonia> so yes, I'd like that consistancy
[15:50] <funkyHat> I suppose the same command 2 weeks ago would have gotten you 12.10
[15:50] <phunyguy> funkyHat: wrong
[15:50] <funkyHat> Ok 6 months and 2 weeks ago :P
[15:50] <phunyguy> unless you have update-manager prompting for ANY release vs LTS only
[15:50] <ikonia> funkyHat: thats the odd thing
[15:50] <ikonia> funkyHat: the LTS -> LTS only tag changes it
[15:51] <ikonia> funkyHat: which is why there are multiple context
[15:51] <phunyguy> if any release, running without -d will get you 12.10
[15:51] <phunyguy> but will that even work anymroe?
[15:51] <phunyguy> anymore*
[15:51] <ikonia> I don't know as the repos are EOL
[15:51] <phunyguy> I assume if you are still on 12.04 and you are prompting for upgrading on any release, you would've upgraded by now :)
[15:51] <ikonia> so if you followed the old process and moved the repos to old-release url then tried it I "assume" it would work
[15:52] <phunyguy> ikonia: maybe do-release-upgrade is smart enough to do that
[15:52] <phunyguy> ....then again, maybe not
[15:52] <ikonia> nah, it's not
[15:52] <ikonia> and I don't think thats a bad thing
[15:52] <phunyguy> no it's not
[15:52] <phunyguy> like I said, if you wanted the bleeding edge, and were prompting for any new realease, you wouldn't still be on 12.04
[15:53] <IdleOne> upgrade-manager won't take you to an EOL release because those repos are closed and it can't access them
[15:53] <phunyguy> let me test!
[15:53] <phunyguy> I have 12.04 right here
[15:53] <ikonia> IdleOne: even on old-releases
[15:53] <ikonia> IdleOne: can't point it at old-release and do it ?
[15:53] <IdleOne> unless you do some editing and change your sources to old-release
[15:53] <ikonia> yeah, that's the old release process
[15:53] <IdleOne> ikonia: yeah, but that is not a reg user process nor is it meant to be.
[15:54] <ikonia> no, it's for people who forgot to maintain a stable system
[15:54] <phunyguy> it's trying....
[15:54] <phunyguy> maybe they havent moved the repo yet
[15:54] <ikonia> to be honest, I don't care personally
[15:55] <ikonia> I'm quite capable of managing my own system
[15:55] <ikonia> I was just trying to get something solid that we could give to users
[15:55] <ikonia> but it's not sweat of my back if it stays how it is
[15:55] <phunyguy> so let's see about 13.04 after this, because that expired in Jan, right?
[15:55] <IdleOne> something like that
[15:56] <phunyguy> ikonia: I think we should stick with what we know, and that is, if you want 14.04 from 12.04, you have to wait until 14.04.1... and adding the -d option in a how-to will not hurt anything after 14.10
[15:56] <ikonia> phunyguy: seems to be confusing a lot of people, I don't think it's "what we know", but as I said, I don't personally care
[15:57] <phunyguy> it is confusing... right now, but I think give it a couple more weeks to sink in, and it will be OK.
[15:57] <ikonia> it didn't sink in from 10.04/12.04
[15:57] <ikonia> so years later it's still confusing
[15:57] <phunyguy> I just don't think it gets talked about often
[15:57] <ikonia> and not clear on the ubuntu.com website
[15:57] <phunyguy> once every 2 years is not often at all.
[15:57] <phunyguy> it is clear if you read the release notes. :)
[15:57] <ikonia> home users are not reading release notes
[15:58] <ikonia> home users are reading the ubuntu.com website and trying to upgrade
[15:58] <phunyguy> yes but us giving support... should be.
[15:58] <ikonia> phunyguy: exactly why consistancy is important to me
[16:00] <phunyguy> right, but some change can be good.  Could you imagine if everyone was prompted for an upgrade right when 14.04 was released?
[16:01] <phunyguy> that would get ugly fast
[16:01] <ikonia> phunyguy: no different than everyone downloading the install CD
[16:01] <phunyguy> ikonia: yes but when they are prompted.....  I imagine only a small number comparitively speaking lined up for the ISO
[16:01] <ikonia> phunyguy: did you not see #ubuntu and release-party ?
[16:01] <phunyguy> then as folks want to upgrade with the -d option, they can, and finally in July, everyone taht is left will get the prompt to upgrade.
[16:01] <ikonia> people where gagging to download it
[16:02] <ikonia> and people using -d to upgrade is no different in load than people not using it
[16:02] <phunyguy> ikonia: I did.  But there are more than 2000 ubuntu users
[16:02] <ikonia> with so many people asking "how do I do it"
[16:02] <phunyguy> WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more
[16:02] <phunyguy> and those folks that wanted it now now now, don't give a rats about LTS
[16:03] <ikonia> of course they do
[16:03] <ikonia> they are regular home users who have waited X years to get an update of any substance
[16:03] <phunyguy> if they did, they would wait to upgrade
[16:03] <ikonia> thats why they are on 12.04 still
[16:03] <phunyguy> ...like me
[16:03] <phunyguy> I am globally still on 12.04
[16:03] <ikonia> no, they are home users who want a stable upgrade
[16:04] <ikonia> they don't understand why it's being held back
[16:04] <ikonia> more so as there is very little from canonical
[16:04] <phunyguy> and so we tell them why.
[16:04] <ikonia> wouldn't it be easier to just make a clear notification
[16:04] <ikonia> rather than having to contact each person having a problem
[16:05] <ikonia> or have a stable consistant upgrade behaviour/path
[16:05] <ikonia> rather than having to contact each user having the problem
[16:05] <phunyguy> well that I can agree with... but at the same time, that's why I created that factoid.
[16:05] <ikonia> it even says on ubuntu.com upgrade to 14.04 now
[16:06] <ikonia> it suggests the 14.04 update should be available now
[16:06] <ikonia> http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/upgrade
[16:06] <phunyguy> well can't you, by downloading and booting the CD?
[16:06] <ikonia> I don't know if the cd upgrade works any more
[16:06] <phunyguy> 13.10 -> 14.04 on that page
[16:06] <ikonia> but surly having a page that says "upgrade available now" then holding it back for 2 months seems a bit off
[16:06] <phunyguy> with a link to update notes
[16:06] <IdleOne> When has anonical ever been consistent on the website about anything
[16:06] <IdleOne> ?
[16:06] <IdleOne> canonical*
[16:06] <ikonia> oops yes
[16:06] <phunyguy> If you have a version of Ubuntu other than Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, please read the upgrade notes for more information on how to upgrade.
[16:07] <ikonia> IdleOne: perhaps they should be.....
[16:07] <ikonia> didn't read it
[16:07] <ikonia> dohg
[16:07] <IdleOne> ikonia: I agree
[16:07] <ikonia> which is what I'm asking for
[16:07] <ikonia> consistant command behaviour
[16:07] <ikonia> consistant updates/notifications
[16:23] <phunyguy> interesting, I bumped up to 12.10 on that test VM, and now it is prompting me to install 13.10 directly.
[16:23] <phunyguy> that's a first
[16:23] <phunyguy> maybe that came with the 9 month vs 18 month support schedule...
[16:24] <ikonia> phunyguy: did it change your sources.list away from old-releases
[16:24] <phunyguy> ikonia: I didn't look
[16:24] <phunyguy> but it seems to be skipping 13.04 altogether
[16:24] <ikonia> could you take a look before you upgrade any more
[16:24] <ikonia> phunyguy: what command did you issue in the update ?
[16:25] <phunyguy> deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ quantal main restricted
[16:25] <phunyguy> etc
[16:25] <ikonia> so away from the old-releases url
[16:26] <ikonia> and that was with/without -d ?
[16:26] <phunyguy> that was without, and it prompting for normal releases to go to 12.10
[16:26] <ikonia> phunyguy: so you changed the sources.list to old-releases, disabled lts only and do do-release-upgrade
[16:26] <phunyguy> I didn't change the sources
[16:26] <ikonia> and it took you from 12.04->12.10->13.10 ?
[16:27] <ikonia> oh, so it picked up 12.10 without changing the sources,
[16:27] <phunyguy> I just went from 12.04 -> 12.10
[16:27] <phunyguy> yeah
[16:27] <ikonia> are the 12.10 repos not in the archive yet ?
[16:27] <phunyguy> I guess not
[16:27] <ikonia> no they are not
[16:27] <ikonia> so that's why it's doing it
[16:28] <ikonia> http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/
[16:28] <ikonia> and why it's jumped to 13.10
[16:28] <Pici> the meta-release file still contains all the historical releases
[16:28] <ikonia> Pici: so it will check old-releases too now ?
[16:28] <phunyguy> I wonder what will happen when they do... I am willing to bet either it will a.) break, or b.) take me straight to 13.10.
[16:28] <phunyguy> unless they are waiting until July 24th to move 12.10
[16:29] <ikonia> seems reasonable to give days grace
[16:29] <IdleOne> which makes no sense
[16:29] <ikonia> rather than just kill it
[16:29] <ikonia> give people chance to get off it
[16:29] <Pici> http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/meta-release
[16:30] <ikonia> Pici: http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/dapper/Release
[16:30] <ikonia> worthless links in that meta data
[16:30] <Pici> ikonia: there is a supported:0 tag on that
[16:30] <phunyguy> ikonia: indeed.  But why 12.10 straight to 13.10?
[16:30] <ikonia> ahh so it's only what's marked as supported
[16:30] <phunyguy> in the past there was a 13.04 step
[16:30] <ikonia> phunyguy: latest release
[16:31] <phunyguy> right but when 13.10 was released, I still had to go to 13.04 first
[16:31] <phunyguy> I tested it then
[16:31] <ikonia> phunyguy: pici's meta data explains that
[16:31] <phunyguy> oh ok
[16:31] <ikonia> Dist: raring
[16:31] <ikonia> Supported: 0
[16:31] <ikonia> Dist: saucy
[16:31] <ikonia> Supported: 1
[16:32] <phunyguy> so it goes to the next supported
[16:32] <phunyguy> that makes sense
[16:32] <ikonia> Pici: can't see where the actual pacakge location url is held in there, it's not in the .tar.gz
[16:32] <ikonia> ahh it's not
[16:32] <ikonia> that's why it breaks
[16:32] <ikonia> 12.10 is still marked as supported, that's how it found it on the main servers
[16:33] <ikonia> sorry - my missunderstanding
[16:33] <ikonia> once it's marked as 0 it's dead unless you manually change the sources.list
[16:33] <phunyguy> you mean the release youa re currently on?
[16:33] <Pici> right, but you don't get any extra fixes that might come throguh the updgrade tool
[16:33] <ikonia> no, of course not as that distro is dead
[16:34] <phunyguy> so if I am still on quantal, and it gets changed to 0... I'm boned until I change sources manually...
[16:34] <IdleOne> so ubuntu now supports leap frogging versions?
[16:34] <ikonia> IdleOne: I'm sure it's done that before
[16:34] <phunyguy> IdleOne: raring is not supported, but quantal was until VERy recently
[16:34] <Pici> I wouldn't say it supports it, but it might do it.
[16:34] <ikonia> wasn't 8.04->9.04 possible ?
[16:34] <ikonia> or 8.10 9.10 ?
[16:34] <phunyguy> \raring lost support after 9 months only
[16:34] <Pici> That sounds vaugely familiar.
[16:34] <phunyguy> so there is no choice but to leapfrog here
[16:35] <ikonia> phunyguy: well, you could change the sources.list
[16:35] <IdleOne> yeah you could do that but it would normally break everything
[16:35] <ikonia> as the "oid-release" process
[16:35] <phunyguy> I could, to point to old-releases...
[16:35] <phunyguy> *shrug*
[16:35] <phunyguy> this is good info
[16:35] <ikonia> I guess its up to users to keep up to date
[16:35] <ikonia> it's good 12.10 is staying open to give people chance to get off it
[16:35] <IdleOne> getting too old to keep up with all these crazy changes in behaviour
[16:35] <ikonia> losing interest
[16:36] <ikonia> rather than too old
[16:36] <ikonia> it's spin the wheel of functionality
[16:36] <IdleOne> I'll admit I have lost interest in keeping up with it all
[16:37] <phunyguy> I don't think I ever kept up with that until recently.
[16:37] <phunyguy> and my shirt smells.  I really need to get a new one over lunch.
[16:37] <phunyguy> (cat decided to pee on it last night without me realizing)
[16:38] <IdleOne> the joy of owning a cat
[16:38] <phunyguy> the cat is going to go out the window
[16:43] <IdleOne> In ancient Egypt cats were worshipped as gods and they have not forgotten it.
[16:57]  * genii kicks his cat off the counter
[17:04] <hggdh> my dog does not pee on my clothes. Just a comment...
[17:13] <DJones> phunyguy: 12.10 to 13.10 or 14.04 is the way the upgrade was planned to work, the fridge posting says that 12.10 users will be offered either of those to upgrade to
[17:34] <Pici> !utopic
[17:34] <IdleOne> well that is disappointing
[17:34] <DJones> That factoid didn't exist 5 minutes ago
[17:35] <popey> 17:34:06 <+IdleOne> so ubuntu now supports leap frogging versions?
[17:35] <IdleOne> Pici is a wizard
[17:35] <popey> yes
[17:35]  * DJones waits for IdleOne to /nick utopic
[17:35] <IdleOne> nope
[17:35] <popey> yeah, expected that some minutes ago
[17:35] <Pici> I started putting it together when I saw popey's tweet.
[17:39] <phunyguy> suite
[17:44] <phunyguy> I suggested Unicorn last week in IRC, not saying they even heard me say it, but it's neat that they ended up picking that name.
[18:19] <genii> How could a "U" release *NOT* be a unicorn?? ;)
[18:19] <genii> Although I would have like Ultra and not Utopic ....
[18:23] <IdleOne> When did 40 become middle aged?
[18:23] <IdleOne> I'm not middle aged :(
[18:24] <genii> 14.10 will also mark the 10th anniversary of Ubuntu
[18:24] <hggdh> IdleOne: you *feel* not being middle-aged. OTOH, if you are middle-aged, then I am a senior
[18:25] <hggdh> which really sucks
[18:25] <IdleOne> hggdh: exactly. It feel it sucks and I'm going to be 40. I can imagine how bad you feel
[18:25] <IdleOne> :P
[18:26] <hggdh> well, I am around 25 (mentally). Pity the body does not agree with that
[18:27] <IdleOne> I hear you
[19:13] <DJones> IdleOne: Middle age doesn't start until at least 55
[19:13] <IdleOne> thank you.
[19:13] <IdleOne> I feel a little better now
[19:14] <IdleOne> I was flipping through the channels on tv and came across a movie called This is 40. The description says "A middle aged couple blah blah blah..."
[19:15] <DJones> My parents are in their mid 70's, they go to the gym & pool about 5 times a week, dad for exercise & mum to ogle the rugby team with the rest of the 70+ year old women
[19:15] <IdleOne> Can't blame her :)
[19:16] <DJones> Heh, just hope my dad doesn't try & keep up with the players in training
[19:17] <DJones> I get to hit 48 in August, my body & mind still feels like its in its early 30's, I guess thats what happens when your wife is 15 years younger, helps keep me feeling younger
[19:18] <k1l_> damn, my girlfriend is 3 years older than me. seems i made the wrong deal :(
[19:22]  * genii whistles innocently and stares at Unit193
[19:23] <k1l_> genii: is 193 his age?
[19:25]  * Unit193 whistles.
[19:26] <genii> k1l_: No idea :) But in another channel he was remarking that IdleOne would not be pleased since a user there got the nick UtopicUnicorn, and then I made a smart aleck remark
[19:27] <Jordan_U> Reminds me of a great shirt one of my friends likes to wear, it says "In dog years, I'm dead".
[19:56] <rww> hah, the Status for Utopic in Launchpad is "Pre-release Freeze" #launchpadlies
[23:06] <k1l_> unopaste works as expected with the badwords. good job
[23:43] <rww> holy scrollback batman