=== davidm_ is now known as Guest27591 === davidm_ is now known as Guest18305 === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha === Guest14562 is now known as ogra === bilalakhtar_ is now known as cdbs === bilalakhtar_ is now known as cdbs [11:51] hey people, who should I contact if my @ubuntu email not be created in 7 days? [11:52] any chance? [11:53] bbgolli: #canonical-sysadmin might be the first stop [11:54] TM_T: I could never get an answer from their channel! [11:54] bbgolli: patience is a virtue; also follow the instructions in the channel topic [11:55] ok thnx [11:55] let me try === davidm_ is now known as Guest99521 === yofel_ is now known as yofel === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach === oubiwann is now known as oubiwann_ === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-lunch [15:56] * skaet waves sconklin [15:56] o/ [15:57] hi [15:57] hi zul, pitti [15:57] hey skaet [15:57] skaet: FYI, I don't have that much time today, just 30 mins [15:58] * marjo waves [15:58] pitti, thanks for letting know, will see if I can get a kernel style efficient meeting. [15:58] :) [15:58] hi marjo [15:58] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/2011-02-07-SR [15:58] skaet: i like the goal of "kernel style efficient meeting" [15:59] heh [15:59] to aid the efficiency, agenda is in the link I just posted. [15:59] will repreat it for the minutes, but feel free to look now ;) [16:00] okie, time to start I think [16:00] #startmeeting [16:00] Meeting started at 10:00. The chair is skaet. [16:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [16:00] Agenda can be found: [16:00] [LINK]https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/StableReleaseAgenda [16:00] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/StableReleaseAgenda [16:00] Reminder, please follow the convention of using ".." on a separate line when you've finished typing. Also, If someone wants to comment on the last point, please "o/", so we know to wait. [16:00] Focus for this week is 10.04.2. [16:01] [TOPIC] 10.04.2 [16:01] New Topic: 10.04.2 [16:01] pitti, 2 milestoned bugs left - any update on them? [16:02] skaet: I just moved the desktopcouch one which newly appeared on the 10.04.2 list to .3 [16:02] pitti, thanks. [16:02] a year after release it can't be that urgent to re-do all the cert and other validation [16:02] what's the other one? [16:02] foundations one that's been on the list a while. [16:02] see on agenda. [16:03] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+milestone/ubuntu-10.04.2 has quite a bit more, so it's a bit hard to see [16:03] 635273:Building debs with SWIG libraries do not work [16:03] * skaet was just focusing on the high/critical [16:03] this doesn't look like a deal-breaker for .2 at all [16:03] I think we should just move it [16:04] fair enough, will confirm with cjwatson, but lets assume that's the case. [16:04] what is the update on the language packs? which ones landed? [16:04] FTR, I'm still wrestling with langpacks, I have build take #4 running right now [16:04] skaet: we'll land all of them in -proposed, and then quick-verify the ones that are shipped on the images [16:05] on desktops, anyway (not DVDs, as they probably ship all of them) [16:05] I hope I can get them uploaded to -proposed within 2 hours now [16:05] I'll coordinate testing handover with dpm [16:06] but if anything should go wrong, we just use what we have now [16:06] pitti, sounds good. [16:06] ..? [16:08] * skaet wondering if pitti has anything else to add or is done, before moving on? [16:08] .. [16:08] sorry [16:08] :) [16:08] np [16:08] ara, how are we looking on HW cert? [16:08] * Almost all the servers and desktops are already covered. No regressions found so far. \o/ [16:08] * This week the scope is testing laptops and netbooks and finishing the remaining desktops and servers. [16:08] We are on track to finish on time before Thursday. [16:09] .. [16:09] ara, thanks! very good news. [16:09] any questions for ara? [16:10] ara: are there specific things you're depending on, or are all your dependencies ok? [16:10] marjo, everything is OK [16:10] ara: in other words, there are no blockers for hw cert, right? [16:10] no :) [16:10] ara: great to hear [16:11] marjo, how are things looking from your side? [16:11] skaet: this week we're doing the kernel/security testing [16:12] and for 10.04.2, jibel has started syncing images and will do upgrade testing this week. [16:12] .. [16:12] marjo, sounds good. encourage jibel to flag early if any issues show up with the upgrade testing ;) [16:12] skaet: is there time today to discuss "tweaks to SRU kernel process"? [16:13] marjo, after 10.04.2 - we'll go on to SRU [16:13] skaet, I will :-) [16:13] thanks jibel [16:13] skaet: thx much! [16:13] pitti, final images will be cut on Friday or Monday? [16:13] can we do the final validation if we do them on Monday? [16:14] would give us a tad more time for the langpacks [16:14] but if Friday would be better, that works, too [16:14] pitti, suspect ara and jibel would prefer friday if at all possible, so less of a scramble next week. [16:15] ara, jibel - ? [16:15] skaet, I don't have a preference [16:15] skaet, I'm fine with both [16:15] pitti: what happens if you don't get the "tad more time for the langpacks" what's the downside risk? [16:16] marjo: no risk involved; the less time we have, the fewer langpacks will make it to -updates, but no other harm done [16:16] ok [16:16] we don't depend on these, they would just be a "nice to have" [16:16] pitti: understood; i like plans w/ "no risk involved" :) [16:17] skaet: i would say let's go for Friday final image, ok? [16:17] ack [16:17] to avoid the scrambling [16:17] pitti: thx much! [16:17] pitti, if langpaks are looking reasonable, cut the images on Friday and broadcast widely then. If langpaks are problematic we can discuss. [16:18] bah, they just failed again; firefox translations are broken [16:18] we'll use u-release for discussions. [16:18] pitti: will the initial langpacks include the ones used for the recent Qin image? [16:19] Qin? [16:20] Qin - chinese image [16:20] marjo, wasn't that a maverick one? [16:20] skaet: oh sorry [16:20] I think so [16:20] np [16:20] any other questions about 10.04.2? [16:20] marjo: but it only takes what launchpad translations has, no other sources [16:21] pitti: then we're ok [16:21] so if the chinese edition strings are on launchpad, it will be taken from langpack-o-matic [16:21] * skaet keeps fingers crossed its only langpacks that are problematic for 10.04.2 [16:21] ok, moving on.. [16:21] [TOPIC] SRU updates [16:21] New Topic: SRU updates [16:22] sconklin - what's happening with the kernels? [16:22] | [16:22] | Latest Lucid -proposed is 2.6.32-29.57 [16:22] | Call for verification went out on Feb 4th [16:22] | [16:22] | Latest Maverick -proposed is 2.6.35-26.46 [16:22] | Call for verification went out Feb 1st [16:22] | [16:22] | These were both copied out to -proposed last week. [16:22] | [16:22] | The status page with tracking bugs is here. [16:22] | Our tools will need changes to accomodate [16:22] | the ARM based kernels, so ignore all the information [16:22] | on that page for ARM kernels. [16:22] | [16:23] I got throttled, hold on [16:23] | [16:23] | https://kernel-tools.canonical.com/srus.html [16:23] | [16:23] .. [16:23] what are the tracking bug numbers for maverick, lucid? [16:23] they are in the page I just linked [16:24] thanks [16:24] any questions for sconklin? [16:24] o/ [16:25] go ara [16:25] As we said, we were no going to be able to test SRUs this week. What is going to happen, then? [16:25] a new kernel is going to be uploaded next week? [16:25] Whatever is done will just wait in the queue until you are able to test [16:26] OK [16:26] sconklin: does that mean QA team should hold off also? [16:26] We may upload new kernels to the PPA, but they will not be copied into -proposed until the ones in -proposed are published to updates [16:26] sconklin: or keep going w/ regression testing starting today? [16:27] I thought that you were unable to do regression testing. Whether you can test or not and when cert can test will determine what we do next. [16:28] sconklin: we can do "regression testing" this week, since alpha2 is done [16:28] If there will be no testing in the next week, we can just roll a new version to -proposed, and you can test that after a week in verification. [16:29] if Cert is blocked for another week, then it probably makes sense for us to publish new -proposed, and take all the existing verifications as done [16:29] jibel: any suggestions? [16:29] marjo, thinking in dallas, was that this was opportunity to catch up on hardy and karmic. [16:29] skaet: catch up meaning what? [16:30] sconklin, run the regression testing [16:30] extra regression testing will never hurt, even if the tested versions are superseded in -proposed and not ultimately released [16:31] sconklin, was refering to hardy & karmic [16:31] ? [16:31] that statement applied to every series [16:31] heh [16:31] :) [16:31] applies [16:32] but - in particular, we are concerned about server and virt testing for hardy in this and the next release [16:32] marjo, jibel - ok to look at hardy, karmic this week? then back into the regular pattern after 10.04.2 comes out. [16:32] (probably) for the next because there are some more rather invasive patches in the queue but they haven't been finalized [16:33] should good to me [16:33] skaet: ok, will do [16:33] * pitti waves, need to leave [16:33] er . . . sounds good [16:33] * skaet thanks pitti [16:33] sconklin, er... ? [16:34] have I misunderstood/overlooked something? [16:34] sounds good to me to test Hardy and Karmic [16:34] .. [16:35] ara - any updates/questions? [16:35] skaet, not from me [16:35] so, on the QA side the plan is to do regression testing on Karmic and Hardy this week, then what's in -proposed for maverick and lucid after 10.04.2 is out ? [16:36] jibel, yup, that's my understanding [16:36] jibel: yup, that's my understanding [16:36] okay. thanks [16:36] the certification team is not planning on testing until the week 19, as marked in: [16:36] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NattyReleaseInterlock [16:36] ara, yup. :) [16:36] with the understanding that we may roll out a new -propsed for lucid and maverick before testing gets to it [16:37] sconklin, ack. [16:37] sconklin: ack [16:37] * skaet is doing a good snap set with marjo. ;) [16:37] any other questions about SRU updates? [16:38] marjo did you want to talk about tweaks? [16:38] skaet: thx [16:38] hi folks [16:38] i have a few simple tweaks and suggestions for the Kernel SRU process [16:39] 1. I suggest that this be an agenda item for the SRU & LTS meeting, and make sure HW Cert team raise issues early. I've already asked Kate to include it. [16:39] 2. Ensure all critical and high importance bugs are verified in a timely manner. If not, Jean-Baptiste or his backup will perform the testing. [16:40] 3. Jean-Baptiste will specifically ask at the meeting if there are specific bugs that need verification that aren't being done by the bug reporter. If necessary, a QA team member will do the verification. If not able (e.g. lack of specific HW), will do more calls for testing and nag the bug reporter again. [16:40] 4. Set up separate SRU verification program, for big packages like eglibc, python, X. As you know, we've done that before for mesa. [16:40] .. [16:40] too bad pitti's not here... [16:41] for 3, who will do the tracking and asking? [16:41] sconklin: by default, jibel, but we don't want to duplicate efforts already in place by pitti & sconklin [16:42] marjo, yeah, we need to take this suggestion up with with pitti off line as well. [16:42] marjo, so are you proposing that someone from QA begin to track all the bugs requiring verification? [16:42] sconklin: i'm trying to avoid the last minute scrambling to do fix verification when bug reporters don't do them [16:43] still catching up on backscroll, but only 1/4 brain here [16:43] sconklin: no, we just want to get heads up on those that are not getting verified in a timely manner [16:43] Has there been a problem with this? We have had almost 100% of verifications done quickly for the last few cycles [16:43] And has that impacted QA or cert? [16:43] also, the kernel is really quite special here [16:43] we just need a large amount of testing there because it changes so much [16:43] marjo, are you trying to solve a real problem today or anticipating an issue ? [16:43] we don't allow these kind of changes in any other package (like in X.org) [16:44] bjf: i'm trying to head off the cases where bug reporter doesn't do verification, so someone (QA team) has to try [16:44] sconklin, marjo - tags of verification needed can be surveyed to figure out which are outstanding, and then look at high/critical. [16:44] and we want to know ASAP [16:45] marjo: How often has this happened? I wasn't aware that this was happening [16:45] skaet: yes, that's one way to implement this [16:45] marjo, we have a clear policy on that, if it's not verified by the reporter, we revert the patch [16:45] sconklin, bjf - outside the kernel, there are some good fixes getting no love, since the reporter is the one that fixed it. [16:46] bjf: ok, so maybe these don't apply to kernel, because it's more well behaved [16:46] oh, sorry. I'm in my kernel bubble [16:46] sconklin: yes, you are :) [16:46] [LINK] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html [16:46] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html [16:47] well, you said that these were kernel SRU tweaks, . . . [16:47] sconklin: yes, i did .. [16:47] Have you been having to do verification for any kernel bugs? [16:47] sconklin: would you say that this is NOT a problem for the kernel case [16:48] ? [16:49] sconklin: in general, we (QA team) try to verify fixes if the bug reporter doesn't [16:49] it's not a problem because if people don't test their changed we revert them. I know that some people have had to scramble for testing because they lacked hardware, but I didn't know that it was falling on your team. If it is, we'll look at it [16:49] but only if we have the HW, resources, etc. [16:49] we try to help... [16:49] sconklin: thx much [16:50] marjo, sconlin, thanks. [16:50] marjo: ok, that sounds great - and the best way to determine what needs verification is just to look at our sru status page and see what's not verified [16:50] skaet: so i think that's it from me [16:50] marjo for #1 could you give an example when hw cert have not raised an issue early? [16:50] If you can verify fixes and save us the pain of reverting and get good fixes out, I'm all for that [16:51] victorp: remember ara had to raise the issue re: eglibc? i think you and i agree this should have been caught earlier [16:51] victorp: that's why i'm making these suggestions [16:51] so, hw cert doesn't have to scramble [16:52] sconklin: ack [16:52] yes, but couldnt possibly find it earlier because we are not involve in it [16:52] victorp: we know [16:52] basically QA has to find it earliear so it is not up to hw cert to find it [16:52] victorp: we know [16:53] victorp: we're trying to help you (HW cert) [16:53] marjo, great [16:53] victorp: thx! [16:53] in that case you may rephrase the problem statement [16:53] skaet: thx, that's it from me [16:53] okie, thanks. [16:53] and it will help every one if we get it right not just he cert [16:53] hw cert [16:53] victorp: ack [16:54] before meeting ends... any input from security, OEM, support teams? any escalations? [16:54] * skaet looks around? [16:55] any other questions? [16:55] going once [16:55] going twice [16:55] #endmeeting [16:55] Meeting finished at 10:55. [16:55] thx skaet! [16:55] thanks! [16:56] thanks marjo, victorp, sconklin, bjf, ara, pitti [16:56] thanks skaet! [16:56] skaet -thanks === Ursinha-lunch is now known as Ursinha === skaet is now known as skaet_afk [18:00] o/ [18:00] hi! [18:01] let's wait a couple of minutes for sbeattie, kees and jjohansen [18:01] hey [18:02] o/ [18:02] \o [18:02] \o/ [18:02] alrighty, let's get started [18:03] #startmeeting [18:03] Meeting started at 12:03. The chair is jdstrand. [18:03] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [18:03] The meeting agenda can be found at: [18:03] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting [18:03] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting [18:03] [TOPIC] Review of any previous action items [18:03] New Topic: Review of any previous action items [18:03] so, for my actions, I: [18:03] wrote up meeting minutes and submitted to team for review. These can now be found in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting under 'Previous Meetings' [18:03] added keyring and apt tests to TODO in the QRT scripts (that was surprisingly easy ;) [18:04] added vm-iso work to Roadmap (that too :) [18:04] followed up with skaet on Dapper eol. she is aware. it is currently at 30 days prior to eol. I advised doing a 'heads-up' announcement 90 days before eol for LTS to give LTS users an easier migration path [18:04] she thoguht it was a good idea and is taking it to other interested parties [18:04] so, I think that is it for me... [18:04] kees: update umt to use update-maintainer. iirc you did that already, right? [18:05] jdstrand: eek, no, it got lost. will do asap. [18:06] ah, no worries [18:06] kees: thanks [18:06] sbeattie: I have you down with 'respin ia32-libs' [18:06] jdstrand: no progress there. [18:06] ok [18:06] those can just carry through then [18:06] [TOPIC] Weekly stand-up report [18:06] New Topic: Weekly stand-up report [18:06] I guess I'll go first [18:07] started writing aa-disable (based on aa-complain) and I should send that up later today [18:07] need to follow up on chromium-browser on armel [18:07] I published chromium-browser on saturday, but armel mysteriously restarted [18:08] (thanks Mr Buildd) [18:08] so I uploaded a no change rebuild [18:08] firefox is this week, so I'll be testing that [18:08] looking at dbus/apparmor [18:08] and I'm on triage [18:08] (jdstrand: okay, update-maintainer done now) [18:09] kees: thanks [18:09] kees: you're up [18:09] okay, I'm on community this week. [18:10] last week I spent way too much time working on an embargoed issue, but the maintainer popped up on friday [18:10] so now we're kind of starting over on how to fix the problem, so that'll probably burn more time this week. [18:10] heh [18:10] hopefully I won't need to fight for my %pK patches on lkml this week, as that debate should be over [18:11] but it's not in -mm yet [18:11] nice [18:11] but they should be in natty at least. [18:11] I was going to spend some time updating chroots for debian's release [18:11] and report /proc DAC bypasses to lkml [18:12] if by magic I have free time, I wanted to work on gcc testsuite updates for the hardening bits. the other half needs to go upstream. [18:12] that's it from me. [18:13] mdeslaur: do you want to go next? [18:13] sure [18:14] so, I'm currently publishing dovecot updates [18:14] last week took a lot of my time fixing the dovecot test suite [18:14] I plan on working on exim4 and fuse next [18:15] although I might wait until the fuse stuff in -proposed goes through first [18:15] as it's aggravated by installing fuse security updates [18:15] and that's it from me [18:16] sbeattie: you're up [18:16] mdeslaur: you may need to do some pushing to get fuse through -proposed, but I haven't look at the specific issues. [18:16] is lucid still frozen? [18:16] when does it unfreeze? [18:16] yeah, lucid is still frozen, until 10.04.2 releases. [18:17] I *think* that's this week, but not sure (need to check the schedule) [18:17] I thought it released next week [18:17] which is why QA has time this week to QA the kernel security updates [18:17] * jdstrand is not sure [18:18] not sure, either, should have read through the SRU meeting scrollback from this morning. [18:18] Anyway, I released openjdk and posgresql last week. [18:19] I was also on community last week, and uploaded twiki and drupal6 to security-proposed. [18:19] * jdstrand takes hint from sbeattie and finds "Planned Release Date: February 17, 2011" [18:20] I got partway through reviewing a patch for cacti, and will finish looking at that this week. [18:20] (for sponsering) [18:20] jdstrand: cool, thanks [18:21] I think that's all for me. [18:22] sbeattie: are you carrying over the 2.5.2 and 2.6 snapshots to this week? [18:22] (apparmor) [18:22] yes [18:22] cool [18:22] yeah, planning on doing a bit of release management there this week. [18:23] alright, moving on [18:23] [TOPIC] Miscellaneous [18:23] New Topic: Miscellaneous [18:23] just a couple of things, no action items unless people get excited about one [18:23] I've added AppArmor profiles for totem-video-thumbnailer, gnome-thumbnail-font and telepathy backends to the Roadmap since the all could easily handle untrusted content [18:23] Oh cool. [18:24] I very quickly looked at the apparmor bp, and postponed a couple of things based on the current status. eg, I postponed the techdoc stuff. I think it may be less important now with all the other doc updates in the wiki, but we can discuss that another time [18:25] jjohansen: I'm curious about 'Merge in parser cleanups' and 'Reduce dfa creation memory use'. both are INPROGRESS. are these actually done (I thought they were)? [18:25] jdstrand: no, they are works in progress [18:25] jdstrand: bits and pieces of them are done [18:26] jjohansen: ok, then the status is correct. thanks [18:26] that is all I have. does anyone from the team have anything else to discuss? [18:26] jdstrand: there are bits and pieces I could start asking for patch reviews on but really they should come as a unit (ie a complete patch set) [18:27] jjohansen: that is fine. no rush, just curious :) [18:27] jdstrand: nor will all the cleanups get merged this cycle [18:27] there are lots and lots of them [18:27] but we will do what we can [18:28] I have one: we should schedule conference times [18:28] jjohansen: sure. maybe we could break them up a bit, and then move the ones we know won't hit to future items? [18:28] kees: yes, I have it on my todo to investigate/ask about that [18:28] okay, sounds good. [18:29] jjohansen: it doesn't have to be super detailed, but just so we have a better idea of what will hit and what won't [18:29] jdstrand: sure [18:29] jjohansen: in fact, future cleanups could be very general, and we can pull in the specific ones per cycle as work items [18:29] jjohansen: thanks [18:30] ok, moving on [18:30] [TOPIC] Questions [18:30] New Topic: Questions [18:30] does anyone have any other questions or items to discuss? [18:30] * jdstrand might change the to Miscellaneous & Questions... [18:31] alright, thanks everyone! [18:31] #endmeeting [18:31] Meeting finished at 12:31. [18:31] thanks! [18:31] jdstrand: thanks! [18:32] sure! :) [18:32] thanks jdstrand! === davidm_ is now known as Guest95278 === skaet_afk is now known as skaet [19:23] account on [19:24] err you aren't bitlbee === davidm is now known as dm_afk === fosdemlogger is now known as austrialogger === austrialogger is now known as apachelogger === oubiwann_ is now known as oubiwann === dm_afk is now known as davidm === tumbleweed_ is now known as tumbleweed === bjf is now known as bjf[afk] === Craig_Dem_ is now known as Craig_Dem