| brobostigon | morning boys and girls. | 07:46 |
|---|---|---|
| directhex | is there a defective update to 16.04 which broke libsecret? my desktop can't access my gnome keyring now either | 10:30 |
| Nokaji | is there a page that details the naming convention for file/proggie versions? - e.g. the difference between - libcups2 (= 2.1.3-4) -AND- 2.1.3-4ubuntu0.2 (and what the 2.1.3-4 means) | 13:47 |
| acheronuk | Nokaji: 2.1.3 is upstream version, -4 is the debian packaging revision and the ubuntu after that wil a number indicates that there are ubuntu specific changes to the packaging compared with debian | 13:56 |
| Nokaji | Ah! - makes sense at last, thanks acheronuk presumably the first digit in 2.1.3 takes priorityand higher is more recent, through to the last digit (3)? | 14:04 |
| acheronuk | Nokaji: yes, 2 is the major version of the software. .1 is is a minor release in the version 2 series, and the .3 most likely indicates the 3rd micro or bugfix release of that | 14:08 |
| Nokaji | Marvellous, thanks acheronuk ... | 14:10 |
| Nokaji | If I'm getting an error report as follows " Depends: libcups2 (= 2.1.3-4) but 2.1.3-4ubuntu0.2 is to be installed" then (if I understand right) this is telling me the additionally used package has been upgraded however the main proggie I wish to install is unaware of the upgrade and expects the older version - does it is unfixable until 'they' fix it? | 14:12 |
| Nokaji | thus it is unfixable* (unless I at least manually edit the pkgs) | 14:13 |
| Nokaji | put another way - it is a developer issue - not a problem with my system | 14:14 |
| acheronuk | Nokaji: that sounds familiar. lemme check something.... | 14:17 |
| Nokaji | It's cups I'm trying to reinstall, by the way | 14:17 |
| Nokaji | ... or the whole cups/printing she-bang | 14:18 |
| acheronuk | Nokaji: knew it sounded familiar. You are on Xenial I presume? | 14:20 |
| Nokaji | 16.04 | 14:21 |
| acheronuk | there was an update to cups that got 'pulled' by the ubuntu archive admins, but some people may have got it and upgraded to it. | 14:21 |
| acheronuk | see: https://www.kubuntuforums.net/showthread.php?t=71637 | 14:22 |
| Nokaji | Ah, that was the gist I got but I'm rather new at this. It didn't seem to have the high coverage/awareness I might have expected | 14:22 |
| Nokaji | thanks for the link, acheronuk - Im guessing they have a solution then, e.g. downgrade something | 14:23 |
| acheronuk | so most likely need to identify and force downgrade any cups packages of that bad version back down to 2.1.3-4 | 14:23 |
| Nokaji | We are getting somewhere at last, O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! - lol | 14:24 |
| acheronuk | Nokaji: I replied from post #6 in that thread | 14:25 |
| acheronuk | (which is why I remembered it) | 14:25 |
| Nokaji | Righty :) | 14:25 |
| Nokaji | I guess this is a temp fix and they'll auto-fix it in future upgrades, or maybe there is not auto-mechanism for removing more recent numbers | 14:26 |
| Nokaji | I'll have to read it and learn | 14:26 |
| Nokaji | you've explained why not everyone has the problem - i.e. how quickly ppl update will vary | 14:30 |
| acheronuk | Nokaji: the release of updates is also 'phased'. See: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PhasedUpdates | 14:33 |
| acheronuk | precisely to pick up regressions or issues while only a small percentage of user have the update. | 14:34 |
| Nokaji | Ah, to destress servers, I guess - and maybe based on local, eg uk servers | 14:35 |
| Nokaji | Oh | 14:35 |
| Nokaji | is there a roll-back mechanism for premature upgrades? | 14:35 |
| acheronuk | AFAIK, just releasing the previous version with a new higher revision number, *if* it's deemed serious enough | 14:38 |
| acheronuk | more than that I can't comment | 14:38 |
| Nokaji | hmh | 14:38 |
| Nokaji | I guess eventualy there will always be a higher number so it would be self-healing | 14:38 |
| Nokaji | could take some time though, ofc | 14:39 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!