[15:33] <juliank> Laney: I'm not mistaken that it was you who said that about phased updates, right?
[15:34] <juliank> Laney: I need to find the backlog to figure out the arguments
[15:34] <Laney> juliank: I don't remember, maybe if you give me more context I might
[15:36] <TJ-> Anyone able to apply a debdiff to broken speedtest-cli in 20.04? bug #1923628
[15:37] <juliank> Laney: I can't find anything useful
[15:37] <Laney> what was it about?
[15:39] <juliank> Laney: When I started phased updates in apt and asked for review, I got a comment that phasing should only apply to updates to installed packages, but not to new installs
[15:39] <Laney> ahhh
[15:41] <juliank> Laney: I believe it was you, but I might totally misremember :D
[15:41] <juliank> And I can't find it without knowing who said it I guess
[15:47] <juliank> Laney: <backlog>
[15:47] <juliank> irc.freenode.#ubuntu-devel.weechatlog:2020-12-18 10:53:12       Laney   juliank: what does it do, if you install a package that you don't have installed already, you might not get the -updates version? or is it only for upgrading?
[15:47] <juliank> irc.freenode.#ubuntu-devel.weechatlog:2020-12-18 10:54:01       juliank Laney: That's a good point, i think it would install the release/security version
[15:47] <juliank> 2020-12-18 10:54:18     juliank Laney: It really just pins down updates to 1
[15:47] <juliank> 2020-12-18 10:55:32     juliank Laney: But you're right, I can make it make it phase stuff for upgrades, not new installs
[15:48] <juliank> 2020-12-18 10:55:46     juliank This also makes things faster!
[15:48] <juliank> 2020-12-18 10:57:04     Laney   Yeah, I think that's what I would expect, also a UI hint that some updates are not being applied due to phasing
[15:48] <juliank> Whee
[15:48] <juliank> I found it by the commit date :D
[15:49] <juliank> So we did not think much about it :D
[15:49] <Laney> juliank: heh
[15:49] <Laney> and now this is causing a problem somehow?
[15:49] <juliank> Laney: yeah, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1925745
[15:51] <Laney> juliank: how come the resolver didn't select u-r-u-core for upgrade?
[15:51] <Laney> "because"
[15:51] <juliank> Laney: u-r-u-core was installed already, and hence the 20% phasing applied, so it did not became the candidate
[15:51] <juliank> Laney: u-r-u-gtk was not installed, so the phsing was ignored
[15:52] <Laney> I would naively have thought that a dependency requirement would have caused it to be upgraded despite phasing
[15:52] <juliank> Laney: APT is not clever enough for those things :D
[15:52] <juliank> So I think I'll turn on phasing for non-installed packages too
[15:53] <juliank> I could phase packages only if any binary in their source is installed, but that would be much slower
[15:54] <juliank> not sure if noticeably slower, but still
[15:54] <Laney> juliank: fair enough, I don't feel very strongly about it
[16:19] <gjolly> Hi there, can someone check LP#1915571 for SRU please? MPs are up against the release branches waiting for someone from ubuntu core to have a look.
[16:42] <jochensp> Hi, libc6_2.31-0ubuntu9.3 was deleted in focal-updates resulting in systems with it installed not being able to install libc6-dev (due to version locking). I think you should provide a .4 equal to .2 instead
[16:42] <jochensp> rbalint: could you take care? (as you commented in https://bugs.launchpad.net/snap-core20/+bug/1926355)
[16:43] <jochensp> ..oups, wrong link: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1912652/comments/15
[16:46] <bdmurray> vorlon: ^
[16:52] <vorlon> bdmurray: are you agreeing that we should publish a .4 to handle the upgrade situation, despite it not having the .3 changes + fixes?