| === 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 | |