[07:46] <brobostigon> morning boys and girls.
[10:30] <directhex> is there a defective update to 16.04 which broke libsecret? my desktop can't access my gnome keyring now either
[13:47] <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)
[13:56] <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
[14:04] <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)?
[14:08] <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
[14:10] <Nokaji> Marvellous, thanks acheronuk ...
[14:12] <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?
[14:13] <Nokaji> thus it is unfixable* (unless I at least manually edit the pkgs)
[14:14] <Nokaji> put another way - it is a developer issue - not a problem with my system
[14:17] <acheronuk> Nokaji: that sounds familiar. lemme check something....
[14:17] <Nokaji> It's cups I'm trying to reinstall, by the way
[14:18] <Nokaji> ... or the whole cups/printing she-bang
[14:20] <acheronuk> Nokaji: knew it sounded familiar. You are on Xenial I presume?
[14:21] <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.
[14:22] <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
[14:23] <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
[14:24] <Nokaji> We are getting somewhere at last, O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! - lol
[14:25] <acheronuk> Nokaji: I replied from post #6 in that thread
[14:25] <acheronuk> (which is why I remembered it)
[14:25] <Nokaji> Righty :)
[14:26] <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
[14:30] <Nokaji> you've explained why not everyone has the problem - i.e. how quickly ppl update will vary
[14:33] <acheronuk> Nokaji: the release of updates is also 'phased'. See: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PhasedUpdates
[14:34] <acheronuk> precisely to pick up regressions or issues while only a small percentage of user have the update.
[14:35] <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?
[14:38] <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
[14:39] <Nokaji> could take some time though, ofc