[20:16] <zx2c4> apw: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1856539 anarchy
[20:16] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1856539 in linux (Ubuntu) "wireguard package doesn't work on ubuntu eon" [Undecided,Incomplete]
[20:16] <zx2c4> im now directing people toward our PPA
[20:16] <zx2c4> breaking network servers that rely on wireguard for access and then not doing anything about it for lots of days doesnt sit too will with users
[20:19] <zx2c4> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wireguard/+bug/1862413
[20:19] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1862413 in wireguard (Ubuntu Eoan) "wireguard-dkms 0.0.20190913-1ubuntu1: wireguard kernel module failed to build" [Undecided,In progress]
[20:22] <apw> zx2c4: indeed
[20:23] <zx2c4> what if you guys bricked people's ethernet cards by accident
[20:23] <zx2c4> and then didnt roll out a fix for a while...
[20:23] <zx2c4> apw: 
[20:23] <apw> zx2c4: a miss labelling of a tracker let that out, a fix is in play but you moaned it wasn't up to date enough
[20:23] <zx2c4> anyway, im going to start actively recommending people stay far away from ubuntu+wireguard until april
[20:23] <zx2c4> you guys have the ability to trivially bump packages to be up to date easily
[20:24] <zx2c4> no build changes required
[20:24] <apw> do what you must
[20:24] <zx2c4> i mean can you blame me?
[20:24] <zx2c4> do i have anohter option here?
[20:24] <zx2c4> i really want ubuntu to be the easy recommendation, because its the os people already know how to use, but when it results in things like this regularly, what am i expected to do?
[20:24] <zx2c4> "sorry i recommended this to you" is about all i can concede 
[20:30] <apw> the kernel was released in error about 48 hours ago, the fixed packages failed dry and were sent to be respin, and I have spent half of the time since on a family emergency, sometimes these things happen
[20:30] <apw> I will get something sorted today
[20:31] <apw> if this had been and lts it would have had more.focus
[20:32] <zx2c4> 48 hours? its been a week ive been getting emails from people
[20:33] <zx2c4> https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2020-February/005044.html
[20:34] <zx2c4> good to know about the LTS priority
[20:34] <zx2c4> i'll advise folks to stick to the LTS releases if they want to use wireguard on servers
[20:37] <apw> we endeavour to treat them well but lts' have much larger user bases
[20:38] <zx2c4> yea makes sense
[20:38] <zx2c4> priorites are priorities
[21:34] <zx2c4> apw: okay looks like you pushed the wrong version?
[21:35] <zx2c4> i am unimpressed
[21:35] <zx2c4> 21:23:34 <apw> zx2c4: a miss labelling of a tracker let that out, a fix is in play but you moaned it wasn't up to date enough
[21:35] <zx2c4> 21:23:56 <zx2c4> you guys have the ability to trivially bump packages to be up to date easily
[21:36] <apw> zx2c4, be unimpresed, that is a working version which is tested with that kernel
[21:36] <apw> zx2c4, that is something i can sru in 1 day in an emergency, a version which has not
[21:37] <apw> zx2c4, even been tested by us with a developement kernle is not appropriate for an SRU let
[21:37] <apw> zx2c4, alone an emergency sryu with no dwell
[21:37] <apw> zx2c4, trust me i know how our sryu process works
[21:37] <apw> zx2c4, i will then expect tomomrrow to go and make the one in focal new
[21:38] <apw> zx2c4, and that can be sru'd at a more normal non-emergency pace which fits within
[21:38] <apw> zx2c4, the sru criteria, and therefore is allowed
[21:38] <zx2c4> gotcha so youre saying that whenever 20.04 gets the new version, youll put that into 19.10?
[21:38] <apw> yes i am saying that, if debian does it before tommorro that will be better, if not and i get a chance
[21:39] <apw> i will try and do it myself, the first time is less easy as i have not changed that package myself so far
[21:40] <zx2c4> gotcha. DalekSec ^ relevant