[13:35] <ghorn_> hi
[13:36] <ghorn_> I recently adopted a debian package and fixed a critical bug
[13:36] <ghorn_> the fix has migrated to vivid, and I would like to SRU it, but I need to test it on the older releases
[13:37] <ghorn_> i have updated the bug description as suggested on the SRU page
[13:37] <ghorn_> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/coinor-ipopt/+bug/1167585
[13:38] <ghorn_> I am happy to help test the fix, but i believe it has to go into the SRU process first
[13:38] <ghorn_> is that right?
[13:39] <ghorn_> thanks in advance
[13:52] <rbasak> ghorn_: thanks for looking at the situation in Ubuntu for us. Note that the test case and reproduction steps should be in terms of the package from the Ubuntu archive, since that's what we'd fix in the SRU.
[13:53] <rbasak> ghorn_: which release and packaging version is affected?
[13:53] <rbasak> Oh, you mentioned Quantal?
[13:53] <rbasak> 12.10 is EOL now. We don't do SRUs for it any more.
[13:55] <ghorn_> hi rbasak, that test case only uses the upstream tarball to get the example, it doesn't compile the upstream library
[13:56] <ghorn_> rbasak: let me check with packages are affected real quick
[13:59] <ghorn_> rbasak: I believe the bug was introduced in ipopt package 3.8.3-2, which is in 12.04 to present
[14:00] <rbasak> ghorn_: you mean coinor-ipopt? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the package.
[14:00] <ghorn_> rbasak: yes i do, sorry
[14:00] <rbasak> ghorn_: OK. And you're saying that with the bug fixed, the test case will pass (ie. no change to the test case, just the packaging fix)?
[14:01] <ghorn_> rbasak: it passes on my debian box, i don't know how to test it on ubuntu
[14:01] <rbasak> ghorn_: sorry, I'm a little confused.
[14:02] <ghorn_> rbasak: sorry that is my fault
[14:02] <rbasak> ghorn_: if there a simple change that fixes a bug, then we can SRU it.
[14:02] <ghorn_> rbasak: this is a simple change which SHOULD fix the bug, but I don't know how to test it
[14:02] <rbasak> ghorn_: given that the test case looks a bit like you're downloading from a third party source rather than using an archive packaging, it might be worth clarifying that in the bug description.
[14:03] <rbasak> ghorn_: you can test it in an Ubuntu chroot maybe? schroot, sbuild etc. are helpful for this.
[14:03] <rbasak> ghorn_: or LXC or a VM.
[14:06] <ghorn_> rbasak: i'll figure out how to test the vivid package, clarify the test case, and try again here
[14:06] <ghorn_> rbasak: thanks for the help
[14:07] <ghorn_> rbasak: is it still possible to SRU to  12.04 ?
[14:08] <rbasak> ghorn_: yes, assuming it meets the criteria. If the package is completely unusable, and a simple patch fixes it, then sure.
[14:10] <ghorn_> rbasak: would the old package be patched, or would it be updated to the working package which is many packages later?
[14:10] <rbasak> ghorn_: policy is to backport a minimal patch to minimise regression risk. Updating to a newer version is normally not permitted due to the regression risk.
[14:11] <rbasak> ghorn_: a completely non-functional package might be grounds for an exception to this, but the case would need to be put to the SRU team.
[14:12] <rbasak> ghorn_: another route to making a new version of a package available to 12.04 users is backports: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports
[14:18] <ghorn_> rbasak: how would you recommend I test my fixed package on 12.04/14.04? i can set up VMs for those but I don't know how to install the package from vivid
[14:24] <ghorn_> rbasak: or do i have to build the source package locally on those os's with pbuilder?
[14:31] <rbasak> ghorn_: I'd use pbuilder or sbuild with Precise and Trusty chroots.
[14:31] <rbasak> ghorn_: an alternative is to upload to a PPA and test from there. Saves having to set up the chroot environments locally.
[14:31] <rbasak> ghorn_: downside is that you have to wait for the PPA build queue. That's not normally too long though.
[16:48] <psusi> could a release manager target bug #1389321 to trusty ( it only affects trusty )?
[16:49] <teward> psusi: i've nominated it for trusty in the mean time - hopefully someone with approve rights can come and poke it
[16:49] <teward> if not i'll poke my sources in the future :)
[16:50] <teward> psusi: also, next question: has this been fixed since Trusty, then?
[16:52] <psusi> teward: yes, it was fixed upstream ages ago but we had been stuck on an ancient version until 14.10
[16:52] <teward> mmkay, if i happen to see the approval on the nomination prior to you, i'll set Fix Released on the bug, and move the current status to the Trusty bug.  If you don't mind :)
[16:52]  * teward is kind of on bug-triage-radar-active mode today :)
[16:53] <psusi> sure...
[16:53] <teward> you'll see it before me probably :)
[16:53]  * teward goes back to the terminal to prep a few diffs
[16:54]  * psusi really needs to get around to upgrading from contributing dev to full
[17:15] <ghorn_> could a release manager please nominate #1167585 to utopic, trusty, and precise?
[17:17] <teward> ghorn_: nominated - it needs someone above bugcontrol paygrade to approve
[17:18] <ghorn_> teward: thank you
[17:20] <ghorn_> teward: where should I ask for the approval?
[17:21] <teward> ghorn_: have patience, I guess, there's some of thsoe levels of users lurking around here
[17:22] <ghorn_> teward: ok thank you!
[20:18] <ali1234> could someone have a look at bug 1222010 (private) - i think it is a duplicate of bug 1293551 (public)
[20:19] <ali1234> but obviously since it's private i can't look at it or do anything with it
[20:36] <bdmurray> ali1234: I'll make the private one public for you
[20:37] <bdmurray> bug 1222010 is now public
[20:38] <ali1234> bdmurray: thanks