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