[00:42] <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
[09:21] <stgraber> micahg: any news on updating lxd?
[09:23] <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
[09:31] <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?
[09:32] <Laney> ah, it matches Architecture of the binary packages
[09:38] <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!
[16:02] <xnox> either its me, or autopkgtest.ubuntu.com lost all xenial test results
[16:03] <xnox> http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/data/packages/
[16:04] <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.
[17:35] <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/
[17:39] <infinity> bdmurray: Because the version in configure was never updated, which is perfectly fine.  *shrug*
[17:41] <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.
[17:42] <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/
[17:43] <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.
[17:45] <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
[17:46] <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.
[17:47] <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.
[17:52] <flocculant> infinity: do you know if there is an actual date when 15.04 goes EOL - or just sometime in January when it happens?
[17:54] <infinity> flocculant: I'll announce it.  Very soon, in fact.
[17:55] <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
[17:56] <infinity> flocculant: I'll give ~3wk notice, then announce again when it's EOL.
[17:56] <flocculant> infinity: ok - cheers :)
[17:58] <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. ;)
[17:59]  * infinity will draft the announce today.
[17:59] <flocculant> ha ha