[01:57] <lotuspsychje> good morning
[04:24] <marcoagpinto> Morning!
[05:33] <wyoung> Afternoon!
[06:22] <lordievader> Good morning
[07:58] <ducasse> good morning
[14:12] <tomreyn> middle of the day, kind of afternnoon-ish!
[16:26] <jochensp> tomreyn: o/
[16:26] <tomreyn> hi jochensp
[16:28] <jochensp> to recap: focal-updates contained libc6_2.31-0ubuntu9.3 before but it was removed and now provides 2.31-0ubuntu9.2 again (cf. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1912652/comments/15) this breaks systems with the .3 installed. I would expect version numbers in focal-updates to only increase, is there such guarantee?
[16:29] <tomreyn> breaks how?
[16:30] <jochensp> like you have libc6_2.31-0ubuntu9.3 installed and now want to install libc6-i386 where you only get .2 but due to being version locked with libc6 is not installable
[16:30] <jochensp> same for libc6-dev
[16:31] <tomreyn> hmm, i see.  can't comment then.
[16:31] <jochensp> tomreyn: ok, where should I ask then?
[16:32] <TJ-> jochensp: see https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+publishinghistory
[16:32] <jochensp> TJ-: I saw that and I think it's a bad idea ;)
[16:32] <tomreyn> jochensp: the initial question seems like a support question to me. just the "how do you call this" question didn't seem like one, which is why i suggested moving here to keep the name discussion out of #ubuntu.-
[16:32] <TJ-> due to https://bugs.launchpad.net/snap-core20/+bug/1926355
[16:33] <TJ-> The update has been reverted, please downgrade glibc binary packges to 2.31-0ubuntu9.2 until the new update becomes available.
[16:33] <TJ-> The problem seems to be caused by the fix for LP: #1914044.
[16:34] <jochensp> TJ-: I downgraded, but I think Canonical should have issued a .4 equal to the .2 instead
[16:34] <TJ-> jochensp: agreed
[16:34] <tomreyn> i tend to agree to this
[16:34] <TJ-> jochensp: .4-really.2
[16:35] <jochensp> no real need to use -really if it's not a upstream version revert ;)
[16:35] <tomreyn> this has been done before, not sure why it wasn't done here, or not yet
[16:35] <TJ-> I wonder if it was deleted because the AA thought it was only in -proposed and it had already begun migration to -updates
[16:35] <TJ-> looking at the timelines that seems plausible
[16:36] <lotuspsychje> early 20.04 devel had a libc issue too after updates
[16:36] <tomreyn> jochensp: maybe bring it up in #ubuntu-devel
[16:37] <jochensp> ok, will do
[16:38] <tomreyn> you should probably also add this note on 1912652
[16:39] <jochensp> that was the other option, I rather though I would find someone here to fix this soon but then got distracted in $dayjob..
[16:40] <tomreyn> yes, those tend to be way too distracting
[16:40] <tomreyn> now focus on what really matters! ;-)
[16:41] <jochensp> well, then I will ignore this and work on Debian :P
[16:41] <tomreyn> hehe
[19:15] <[VMGuy23]> time to reinstall 21.04!
[19:15] <[VMGuy23]> graphix
[19:15] <[VMGuy23]> (fix graphics)
[19:25] <[VMGuy23]> ubuntu installer is really slow
[19:29] <daftykins> nonsense
[19:32] <leftyfb> image someone running an actual public server on WSL? ;)
[19:50] <Walex> leftyfb: that is GNU/NT, not too different from GNU/Linux or GNU/BSD.
[19:50] <leftyfb> Walex: WSL uses the linux kernel
[19:51] <leftyfb> Walex: so not really
[19:51] <Walex> BTW IIRC there are two WSL: v1 has a Linux system call layer, the inverse of WINE, v2 is more similar to User Mode Linux.
[20:08] <[VMGuy23]> Wine has decided to not suck for once
[20:14] <[VMGuy23]> It's surprising, really
[20:29] <[VMGuy23]> And it is performing very well
[20:38] <Walex>  Yes, WINE has been pretty good for a while, but it has always been quite fast. It is not an emulator after all, it is a native implementation.
[21:42] <ravage> The name itself says that actually :)