File size: 14,937 Bytes
4aa5fce |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 |
=== cpaelzer__ is now known as cpaelzer === cpaelzer__ is now known as cpaelzer [14:01] <doko> o/ [14:02] <didrocks> he [14:03] <doko> cpaelzer, jamespage, joining? [14:03] <jamespage> o/ [14:03] <jamespage> yep [14:05] <doko> let's start with component mismatches [14:05] <doko> https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg [14:05] <doko> didrocks: can you do/forward alsa-lib? [14:06] <didrocks> doko: I will forward it [14:06] <cpaelzer> here [14:06] <doko> and I didn't look at the status of ghostscript/fonts, although cpaelzer did [14:06] <didrocks> doko: actually, it’s the kernel team who maintains alsa [14:07] <didrocks> so I guess it should be them filing the MIR [14:07] <doko> jamespage: cinder/python-tabulate ? [14:07] <didrocks> (looking at alsa-lib subscriber) [14:07] <cpaelzer> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fonts-urw-base35/+bug/1862048 was waiting for a subscriber [14:07] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1862048 in ghostscript (Ubuntu) "[MIR] fonts-urw-base35" [High,New] [14:07] <cpaelzer> didrocks: you said you can't do so and pinged others [14:07] <cpaelzer> has this happened? [14:07] <didrocks> yes [14:07] <didrocks> desktop-packages is sub [14:07] <joeubuntu> sorry all, late to the meeting. [14:08] <cpaelzer> Then this is ready for promotion @didrocks [14:08] <didrocks> will do after this meeting [14:08] <cpaelzer> I updated the bug accordingly [14:09] <doko> I'll forward apport/terminator to foundations [14:09] <cpaelzer> there are two more in te new MIR queue [14:09] <doko> and doing the licensecheck ones [14:09] <cpaelzer> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/?field.searchtext=&orderby=-date_last_updated&field.status%3Alist=NEW&assignee_option=none&field.assignee=&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir [14:09] <cpaelzer> telp / amtk - has anyone context on those? [14:10] <didrocks> I don’t but I’ll handle it [14:10] <doko> gedit [14:10] <didrocks> them* [14:11] <cpaelzer> thanks didrocks, IÄll assign you ont he bugs then [14:11] <didrocks> thx [14:11] <cpaelzer> Lets also look at the recently modified incomplete [14:11] <doko> so the open one is cinder/python-tabulate [14:11] <cpaelzer> whiel I fetch the Link I think Laney wanted to talk about something [14:11] <cpaelzer> Laney: around? [14:12] <cpaelzer> incomplete MIRs [14:12] <cpaelzer> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/?field.searchtext=&orderby=-date_last_updated&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir [14:12] <cpaelzer> jeepeney was done alst week and needs no further action for now [14:12] <doko> this list is long [14:13] <cpaelzer> they don't auto-expire [14:13] <cpaelzer> doko: therefore - we only look at the last touched [14:13] <cpaelzer> although when in Frankfurt on the sprint we could clear out the past if all us want to do so [14:13] <cpaelzer> should be a quick everyone-nods-and-set-invalid pass [14:13] <cpaelzer> ec2-instance-connect still is disliked by me and security [14:14] <cpaelzer> but I know rbalint is working on it [14:14] <cpaelzer> anyone haveing any other MIRish topic to discuss ? [14:15] <didrocks> nothing here [14:15] <doko> jamespage: still here? [14:15] <jamespage> yep [14:16] <jamespage> sorry - multi-tasking never helps == multi-failing [14:16] <jamespage> I think there was one new security MIR added to the queue for joeubuntu's team [14:16] <jamespage> in the last week - masakari [14:17] <doko> filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-tabulate/+bug/1862773 [14:17] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1862773 in python-tabulate (Ubuntu) "[MIR] python-tabulate (dependency of cinder)" [High,Incomplete] [14:17] <doko> joeubuntu: ^^^ [14:18] <jamespage> masakari is in the backlog on the security team trello so its in the queue [14:18] <jamespage> thanks [14:19] <jamespage> doko: coreycb or I will pickup completion of that MIR for tabulate [14:19] <joeubuntu> IT's on the list, thanks doko [14:19] <doko> ta [14:19] <doko> anything else? [14:19] <cpaelzer> I think we are good [14:19] <cpaelzer> as I said Laney had some question [14:20] <cpaelzer> but I don't know which one, only that didrocks and I said plese get to the IRC meeting to talk about it [14:20] <cpaelzer> didrocks: do you know what it was about? [14:21] <didrocks> I don't at all [14:21] <didrocks> we have our desktop meeting in 10 min, so he should soon be around [14:21] <cpaelzer> hmm later/next time then [14:21] <cpaelzer> oh that is good [14:22] <cpaelzer> Oh FYI I won't be here next week (PTO) [14:22] <doko> see you, bye [14:22] <cpaelzer> cu [14:22] <didrocks> enjoy cpaelzer :) [14:25] <didrocks> doko: just to be clear: I’ll let you handle alsa-lib dep with the kernel team if you don’t mind [14:29] <doko> didrocks: to be clear, doing adminstrative work on a MIR doesn't have to be done just be me [14:29] <doko> now https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-ucm-conf/+bug/1862776 [14:29] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1862776 in alsa-ucm-conf (Ubuntu) "[MIR] alsa-ucm-conf & alsa-topology-conf (b-d of alsa-lib)" [High,Incomplete] [14:31] <didrocks> I don’t think filing an empty MIR really helps in moving the discussion forward with the people who need to deal with it, but probably material for discussing in Frankfurt [14:32] <Laney> back here [14:32] <Laney> is the meeting still going obn? [14:32] <didrocks> it's done [14:33] <Laney> meh [14:33] <didrocks> but I guess you can write here, people seem still being around [14:33] <cpaelzer> yep [14:33] <Laney> it's not on the fridge calendar btw [14:34] <Laney> yeah ok, so there's a project going on at the minute with some of us @ canonical [14:34] <Laney> basically the goal is to make the oem enablement tweaks that some hardware requires, and comes with when you buy it with ubuntu pre-loaded, also available if you buy with another OS and install Ubuntu yourself [14:35] <Laney> essentially requires defining extra packages to install for different hardware [14:35] <cpaelzer> doko: jamespage: joeubuntu: ^^ highlight to make you come back to the meeting :-) [14:35] <Laney> we're going to do this by including metapackages on the iso that declare what they're compatibile with, and dynamically installing them [14:35] <Laney> now "on the iso" implies "in main" [14:35] <Laney> and "package*s*" implies many [14:36] <Laney> so I'm coming to you to try to work out an exception for this [14:36] <cpaelzer> This sounds familiar, did you bring that up on the last engineering sprint already? [14:36] <Laney> I did write up a draft here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MIRTeam/Exceptions/OEM [14:36] <Laney> yes [14:36] <Laney> the idea is that packages which fit that draft can go in without MIR [14:36] <cpaelzer> great, the exception is what I'd have asked for [14:36] * cpaelzer reading ... [14:38] <cpaelzer> so the real content is in an extra apt archive [14:38] <cpaelzer> and this is really just abotu the meta-packages to go onto the iso [14:38] <cpaelzer> that was unclear last time we talked, thanks for adding the link on the wiki page [14:39] <Laney> more or less, and that part is being considered by the TB [14:39] <Laney> the meta pkgs themselves are super trivial [14:39] <didrocks> how many of those packages per release do you expect to see during a release life? [14:40] <Laney> no idea [14:40] <Laney> that all depends on how many laptops are enabled which is a bit beyond my field of view [14:40] <Laney> but you could say several [14:41] <didrocks> wondering as well about the burden on the SRU team, but that’s another topic (to see if the mechanism is realistic) [14:41] <cpaelzer> Laney: I know it was only an idea back then when we talked - but is there any chance to get a linter-script for these rules ont that wiki page? [14:41] <didrocks> anyway, if we expect several, I think we should have an automated checker for them [14:41] <cpaelzer> the AAs could use that to verify that the package follows the rules before promotions [14:41] <didrocks> exactly :) [14:41] <cpaelzer> hehe, same thoughts it seems [14:41] <Laney> explain more [14:41] <Laney> please [14:41] <cpaelzer> Laney: I think the definitions on the page are good [14:42] <cpaelzer> Laney: the next step would be writing and attaching a script of some sort [14:42] <Laney> I don't really have weeks to spend writing a script [14:42] <Laney> or days even [14:42] <Laney> so if that blocks this, it might do so for some time [14:42] <cpaelzer> well, if we don't have such a thing the AAs will ahve to manually check against the defnitions ont his page [14:43] <cpaelzer> which can work, but is error prone as we all know [14:43] <cpaelzer> and it scales wit hthe number of packages that will go this path [14:43] <didrocks> and can consume even more time depending on how many packages we are talking about (which we should know before starting this) [14:43] <didrocks> I guess the OEM team can give some estimation [14:44] <cpaelzer> Laney: IMHO it will not stall the approval of this approach to not (yet) have this script [14:44] <cpaelzer> But once the actual "please promote on the base of this" happens [14:44] <cpaelzer> then having one will make it fast [14:44] <cpaelzer> and lacking that checker will make it slow and the AAs grumpy [14:45] <Laney> ok I can put it on the list, but I have to deliver the project itself as a higher priority, hope you understand [14:45] <cpaelzer> absolutely [14:46] <didrocks> I think it can be seem as a broken record, but I would really like to have at least have a guess estimate of the number of packages we are talking about [14:46] <Laney> didrocks: can you explain the background behind your request? [14:46] <Laney> if it's 10, you prefer to review them all manually? [14:46] <Laney> but 15 not? [14:47] <didrocks> I guess 10 is indeed ok, but if it’s 30, the script should be mandatory before we start such a process [14:47] <Laney> it's an interesting one [14:47] <didrocks> as AA will likely spend more time and it will be more error-prone [14:48] <Laney> if you decline this exception then it is the *MIR* team that gets more work [14:48] <juliank> It's not that hard to have one package as a reference, and then run debdiff against any new ones, though [14:48] <Laney> I'm interested because it saves me paperwork, but you should be because it saves you MIRs to review [14:48] <juliank> And that provides a reasonable review base, I'd guess [14:48] <cpaelzer> that is a simple approach to such a helper script [14:48] <cpaelzer> good hint juliank [14:48] <didrocks> I’m more thinking about MIR/AA/SRU in general, and not not caring just to deliver but giving the load to others [14:49] <Laney> I'm saying the difference between declining until I write a script and approving without the script isn't that great [14:49] <Laney> it's the addition of some paperwork [14:49] <Laney> but if debdiffing some template is OK, ... [14:49] <didrocks> which will back-pressure all parties to have a script [14:50] <didrocks> or it will never happen because life and next projects… [14:50] <juliank> "debdiff <first .dsc> <new .dsc> | filterdiff -p1 -x debian/changelog -x debian/modaliases" should be enough of a script [14:50] <didrocks> yep [14:50] <Laney> seriously? [14:50] <joeubuntu> This sounds like a method to just get around MIRs, will the packages that get installed be supported for 10 years? [14:51] <Laney> it is a method to get around MIRs [14:51] <Laney> they'll be supported for the life of the release yes [14:51] <Laney> get around in the sense that doing MIRs will be extremely repetitive [14:52] <joeubuntu> But the burden of support isn't any lower, shouldn't we do some validation of the packages supportability? [14:52] <cpaelzer> joeubuntu: the packages will have no "active" content [14:53] <cpaelzer> joeubuntu: we essentially do the validation on the template [14:53] <cpaelzer> and then based on that provide a fast path as long as that pattern is matched [14:53] <joeubuntu> OK, that makes sense. [14:53] <joeubuntu> Thanks [14:53] <cpaelzer> Laney: please correct me if your plan changed from what I barely remember from half a year ago :-) [14:54] <cpaelzer> Laney: maybe the words in the last few messages here could be added to the wiki [14:54] <Laney> no that's it [14:54] <cpaelzer> it seems they help to calrify [14:54] <Laney> so that debdiff thing, that is ok for a script for you? [14:54] <Laney> I can upload a 'good' template somewhere and then just add that to the page ... [14:54] <cpaelzer> yeah, if you attach the files needed and how to invoke to the wiki that should be ok [14:55] <didrocks> I think so, just wrap it in an helper for the AA and that’s fine [14:55] <cpaelzer> a repo somewhere and a link to it from the wiki might be even better than an attachment [14:55] <didrocks> I would really put that in lp:ubuntu-archive-tools [14:55] <cpaelzer> didrocks: weren't there a aa-helper repository somewhere? [14:55] <cpaelzer> yes that is what i was looking for [14:55] <cpaelzer> Laney: would that work for you (not stalling you too much) but giving you what you need? [14:56] <Laney> I thought you wanted an actual static verifier, but this should be ok if you don't mind [14:57] <cpaelzer> we are all reasonable people, in a perfect world there would be a super-duper-verifier - but this seems to work [14:57] <cpaelzer> if it turns out it does not it will slow down the AAs and thereby your packages from promotion [14:57] <didrocks> and all packages will have a very strong testsuite in them :p and and and… :) [14:57] <cpaelzer> but I think this will be good [14:57] <juliank> Oh, test suite [14:57] <didrocks> ahah [14:57] <cpaelzer> Laney: would you ping me once you updated the wiki/repo please? [14:58] <juliank> It would be nice to have autopkgtest that installs it and run apt update I guess to ensure there's no typos in the .list entry [14:58] <cpaelzer> we lack the people to "sign-off" on this atm, but I can send a mail to the MIR team then [14:58] <Laney> cpaelzer: ok, I will do, thanks [14:58] * Laney ignores juliank trying to load more work onto this [14:58] <cpaelzer> juliank: good suggestion [14:58] <cpaelzer> lets add it only as a bonus-objective to avoid the anger of Laney [14:59] <didrocks> heh [14:59] <Laney> if you're being cool you'd do it with autodep8 [14:59] <Laney> and *that* would be the static verifier [14:59] * Laney runs [14:59] <juliank> Oh yeah, I should write an autodep8 module for verifying packages which install sources.list entries [14:59] <didrocks> yeah, but nothing ensures you that in the long run, the repo is still valid [15:00] <didrocks> and have needed packages [15:00] <didrocks> but anyway, let’s move on :) [15:00] <didrocks> (or you need regularly running autodep8, which in the end is a jenkins-like solution with reporting and so on…) [15:06] <Laney> funny thing but juliank is at some point in our lives going to work on something similar to that |