[09:28] <rickardve> Any info on bugs/problem with preseed / debian-installer?
[09:29] <rickardve> I'm trying to get this bug sorted: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debian-installer/+bug/1505839
[13:10] <eliasps> Hey everyone. I need some help to report a bug about a package that could be SRU'ed in wily.
[13:20] <rbasak> eliasps: what do you need?
[13:22] <eliasps> rbasak bare with me because I'm totally lost in this process. I need to propose clutter's latest upstream version 1.24.2 to be SRU'ed into wily. 1.22.4 is in the repositories. How exactly do I report it? What steps should I follow and what work is required from my part?
[13:28] <rbasak> eliasps: are you familiar with https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates?
[13:33] <eliasps> rbasal, I read the content of this link. I think this falls into "other safe cases" or "new upstream microreleases", but I think I still lack information. I read a bunch of bugs that sru-verification team is subscribed and noticed those two: bug 1470120 and bug 1467533 . But I'm still unclear on how to do this.
[13:33] <eliasps> rbasak *
[13:34] <rbasak> eliasps: first I want to save you time if an SRU is not the correct path. Please can you explain why the bump from 1.22.4 from 1.24.2 is necessary in Wily as opposed to users waiting for Xenial or using the -backports pocket?
[13:35] <teward|live> rbasak: you just ninja'd me lol
[13:35] <teward|live> i was going to state something just like that xD
[13:35] <rbasak> :)
[13:35] <eliasps> There have been a lot of upstream bug fixes and improvements of clutter from the version in ubuntu and the latest one: https://git.gnome.org/browse/clutter/tree/NEWS
[13:43] <rbasak> It looks like there are behaviour changes there, like switching the default backend.
[13:43] <rbasak> I can't make a decision (it's up to the SRU team) but it looks to me that this isn't suitable for SRU.
[13:44] <rbasak> Oh, I'm sorry. That's prior to the version in Wily.
[13:44] <eliasps> rbasak so you think I should move on with this?
[13:44] <rbasak> I'm still not sure though, eg. line 143.
[13:44] <teward|live> rbasak: there may be subsequent handling changes
[13:45] <teward|live> not to mention additional depends
[13:45] <rbasak> eliasps: what's your background here? Are you the Debian maintainer, a member of the upstream project or a third party?
[13:45] <teward|live> (the further you go up on that changelog)
[13:45] <teward|live> (just observations)
[13:47] <eliasps> rbasak, no background. I just update packages for the gnome3-staging PPA lately and did so for clutter. And the developer that I'm sending those to for upload mentioned that clutter could be sru'ed into wily and asked me if I could prepare a bug, so I'm trying to for that and get more familiar with such processes.
[13:47] <rbasak> OK, thanks. Well, whichever way we do appreicate your work in making the experience better for Ubuntu users.
[13:48] <rbasak> I'm just not sure this qualifies for an SRU.
[13:48] <rbasak> The first step in an SRU is to update the development release anyway, so you could create a bug to track that.
[13:49] <rbasak> Call it "Please update libclutter-1.0 to 1.24.2" or something
[13:50] <rbasak> Tag it "upgrade-software-version"
[13:50] <eliasps> rbasak thank you, any documentation on how I should that?
[13:50] <eliasps> What should I mention in the description and such things.
[13:50] <rbasak> eliasps: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/clutter-1.0/+filebug
[13:51] <rbasak> eliasps: just pointing to the upstream release notes will do.
[13:51] <rbasak> Though, clutter-1.0 is in sync with Debian
[13:51] <rbasak> So we would prefer you to work with Debian to have it updated, and then it will autosync to Ubuntu for xenial
[13:52] <rbasak> And, in fact, I see that 1.24.2-1 is in Debian already
[13:52] <eliasps> Yes, no ubuntu-specific changes I recall.
[13:52] <eliasps> The latest version is in debian already
[13:52] <rbasak> So you don't need to do anything. It will auto-sync to Xenial when autosync is turned on
[13:52] <eliasps> yes.
[13:52] <eliasps> But you think I shouldn't propose it for wily too.
[13:53] <rbasak> I don't want to stop you from asking the SRU team, as it's not my decision.
[13:53] <rbasak> If you wish, create a bug. It's fine to just call it "Backport clutter-1.24.2 to Wily" if you like.
[13:54] <eliasps> Again, pointing to the upstream notes?
[13:54] <rbasak> Yes, and explain that it will autosync from Debian as soon as autosync is turned on.
[13:54] <rbasak> Point out what version is in Debian.
[13:54] <rbasak> And justify the backport request against the documented SRU policy
[13:54] <eliasps> rbasak, ok. You've been very helpful, thank you very much!!
[13:55] <rbasak> In particular the concern is to make sure that users expecting a stable release are not inconvienced by behaviour changes or regressions
[13:55] <rbasak> eliasps: once done, you will need to follow up with an SRU team member - the bug will probably languish otherwise.
[13:56] <eliasps> rbasak will do. I'll re-read the documentation and create the report based on that and your pointers!
[16:11] <eliasps> rbasak after researching everything about clutter-1.0 and the SRU policy, I found out that a dependency of its latest version isn't met in wily, specifically this package: libcogl-dev, which has a lower than the required version of the latest clutter in wily. Is it a dealbreaker?
[16:11] <teward> eliasps: most likely
[16:12] <teward> (i'm not on the SRU team, i'm just saying that it'll likely factor in hugely)
[16:12] <eliasps> teward, thank you! So I'll just wait for Xenial and work on clutter in PPAs.
[16:30] <rbasak> eliasps: yeah so that's where it starts getting painful. You need to work out everything you need to add or bump. It isn't technically impossible but the further you go down this route the more care needs to be taken with regards to the SRU.
[16:31] <teward> ^ that
[16:31]  * teward was being lazy with his response :)
[16:31] <rbasak> eliasps: and so that's points against doing the SRU at all, if you see what I mean. But I still don't want to stop you from asking the SRU team. Just describe what would be required in the bug, justify it as best as you can and then they can make an informed decision.
[16:32] <rbasak> eliasps: and of course the same SRU policy applies to bumping libcogl-dev as well.
[16:33] <eliasps> rbasak thank you. So I'll give it a shot, and if it gets rejected, so be it. I just hope I won't find any other dependency issues or otherwise with libcogl-dev and result in a chain or something.
[16:39] <rbasak> eliasps: for bonus points you could set up a PPA with your proposed backport. That's often a good way to test things when things get complicated with dependencies being updated too.
[16:39] <rbasak> eliasps: for example we do this with the Docker backport that involves bumping about 20 dependencies.
[16:41] <eliasps> rbasak that's great! I have set up a PPA just for that, testing the packages and any dependency bumps that aren't met in wily or gnome3-staging before I sent them for uploads. So I'll do exactly that! Thank you once more! You've been extremely helpful.
[16:51] <rbasak> eliasps: no problem. Thank you for looking after Ubuntu users!