flexiondotorg | cyphermox, When you're not super busy could you take a peek at this merge proposal please? | 00:42 |
---|---|---|
flexiondotorg | https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mate-dev/ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu/ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu-mate-xenial/+merge/282117 | 00:42 |
=== med_ is now known as Guest77121 | ||
stgraber | micahg: any news on updating lxd? | 09:21 |
stgraber | (that is, reviewing the trusty-backports upload) | 09:23 |
stgraber | Laney: or you if you feel like it :) | 09:23 |
Laney | oh yeah sure | 09:23 |
Laney | stgraber: | 09:31 |
Laney | - golang-go (>= 2:1.3.3-1ubuntu4~) [i386 amd64 armhf arm64], | 09:31 |
Laney | + golang-go (>= 2:1.3.3-1ubuntu4~) [i386 amd64 armhf], | 09:31 |
Laney | is that good? | 09:31 |
Laney | ah, it matches Architecture of the binary packages | 09:32 |
stgraber | ah yeah, I changed that to match the binary arch restriction, it doesn't make any difference but figured it was more correct | 09:38 |
Laney | done | 09:38 |
stgraber | thanks! | 09:38 |
xnox | either its me, or autopkgtest.ubuntu.com lost all xenial test results | 16:02 |
xnox | http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/data/packages/ | 16:03 |
rbasak | I think pitti said he was redeploying it or something? | 16:04 |
Laney | xnox: The environment was rebuilt and results have to be re-synced out | 16:04 |
xnox | oh, ok. | 16:04 |
=== lotuspsychje_ is now known as lotuspsychje | ||
bdmurray | infinity: Do you know why apt's own information about what version it is would be wrong the package is from -updates or -security? http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/14481946/ | 17:35 |
infinity | bdmurray: Because the version in configure was never updated, which is perfectly fine. *shrug* | 17:39 |
bdmurray | infinity: I ask because ubuntu-release-upgrader uses apt.apt_pkg.VERSION which ends up being wrong and didn't think working around it in u-r-u was the best solution. | 17:41 |
infinity | bdmurray: Well, you'll note that trusty's is 11 revisions behind. This isn't new. | 17:42 |
apw | bdmurray, can't you ask apt the version of apt, like you would any other package ? | 17:42 |
apw | bdmurray, rather than the version string it has burnt in ? | 17:42 |
infinity | s/apt/dpkg/ | 17:42 |
bdmurray | apw: Yes, that's not the point though. | 17:43 |
infinity | Well, but it is the point. | 17:43 |
infinity | Upstream versions and package versions don't always match. | 17:43 |
infinity | You should be asking dpkg. | 17:43 |
bdmurray | its not returning the upstream version though is it? | 17:45 |
infinity | Yes. | 17:45 |
infinity | It's returning the version burned into configure, which is the "upstream" version. | 17:45 |
infinity | Debian-native packages are weird, and mvo's build system is even weirder. :P | 17:45 |
infinity | But the point stands that you shouldn't ask a binary for its package version. | 17:46 |
bdmurray | The prepare-release script looks to me like it should update the VERSION string by parsing the changelog. | 17:46 |
infinity | It does, but I never call that for SRUs, nor does anyone else. | 17:47 |
infinity | And it's an upstream script. | 17:47 |
infinity | ie: not part of the package build. | 17:47 |
bdmurray | Okay, I'll change u-r-u then. | 17:47 |
flocculant | infinity: do you know if there is an actual date when 15.04 goes EOL - or just sometime in January when it happens? | 17:52 |
infinity | flocculant: I'll announce it. Very soon, in fact. | 17:54 |
flocculant | infinity: so you'll announce before? or when it goes eol? can't remember what happened last time - we were just going to let xubuntu users know it's due | 17:55 |
infinity | flocculant: I'll give ~3wk notice, then announce again when it's EOL. | 17:56 |
flocculant | infinity: ok - cheers :) | 17:56 |
infinity | flocculant: I probably should have announced a week ago, but oops. It'll get another week of support. :P | 17:58 |
infinity | The security team usually bugs me about it. ;) | 17:58 |
* infinity will draft the announce today. | 17:59 | |
flocculant | ha ha | 17:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!