=== jamesh_ is now known as jamesh
=== icey_ is now known as icey
seb128SRU team, could you review those uploads libxmlb in bionic/NEW , then fwupd in bionic and fwupd-signed in bionicNEW? they have been sitting there unreviewed for some weeks and oem is waiting on them09:09
Laneybdmurray: are you aware of the error tracker being quite unresponsive lately?09:34
tjaaltonseb128: sru team can't handle NEW09:41
tjaaltonnot all of us anyway09:41
tjaaltononly AA's09:41
seb128tjaalton, should I just accept it myself then? ;)09:41
seb128or does it still need to go through the sru-accept script or whatever?09:41
seb128I guess best is to have a SRU team member who is AA to accept it09:42
tjaaltonif it's not on the queue anymore, then the next step is to accep it from new?09:42
seb128you mean not in the queue?09:42
seb128tjaalton, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+queue?queue_state=009:43
seb128it's still there09:43
tjaaltonunapproved queue, which the sru team handles09:43
tjaaltonfwupd is09:43
tjaaltonalso, generally #ubuntu-release is a better fit for sru pings09:44
tjaaltonso things are not lost in noise09:44
seb128should I ask there again?09:45
seb128tjaalton, since we are speaking SRU, could you review/approve the update-notifier/bionic one I just uploaded? it's some fixes to the current one that failed verification09:58
SwedeMiketty0: /win 20709:58
seb128tjaalton, should be an easy one, it's some lines of python diff which are pretty simple09:58
juliankPackageKit installs multiple service files10:02
juliankIt runs        dh_installsystemd --no-enable --no-start --no-restart-after-upgrade10:02
juliankwhich is OK for packagekit.service and offline-upgrades.service10:02
juliankbut I'm adding the user/pk-debconf-helper.socket, and I do need that enabled10:02
juliankdo I have to make two calls, one for existing units, and one for the socket?10:05
=== cpaelzer_ is now known as cpaelzer
juliankOh I guess I should just ship a symlink10:07
LocutusOfBorgjuliank, hello, any reason for not having forwarded dkms patch upstream? https://github.com/dell/dkms/commits/master10:54
juliankno reason10:55
blackflowHello, trying to figure out how to find deb src source that's actually used to produce .deb files, through LP. In particular I'm interested into the linux kernel package, I wanna see the patches Ubuntu is adding.10:55
LocutusOfBorgjuliank, will you do it, or shall I do? I don't honestly want to touch your patches, but I can do if needed10:56
LocutusOfBorgblackboxsw, pull-lp-source linux gets the latest version in development (needs installed ubuntu-dev-tools)10:57
LocutusOfBorgotherwise apt-get source does the job I guess10:57
Unit193dget https://path/to/package.dsc is nice.10:58
juliankLocutusOfBorg: does not make sense to forward really10:59
juliankLocutusOfBorg: It's only needed for shim_secureboot_support.patch10:59
juliankand that's not upstream eithert10:59
blackflowLocutusOfBorg: well the thing is, `apt-get source linux`   doesn't seem to include the patches...11:03
blackflowCould someone please direct me to the source code of the final, binary Linux(tm) kernel package as distributed and installed in "Ubuntu(tm) Linux 18.04.2 Bionic Beaver", I believe the redistributed binary package is linux-image-4.15.0-50-generic.  I am unable to locate the (reproducible) source and lack of such access is GPL violation. Under GPLv2 provision 3, subsection (A), the binary package11:26
blackflowmust be accompanied "with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". It is not.11:26
Unit193Oh hah, someone goofed: gcr-viewer.desktop:X-GNOME-Bugzilla-Component=gcrX-Ubuntu-Gettext-Domain=gcr11:27
cjwatsonThere's no GPL violation, we absolutely provide the source.  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/4.15.0-50.54 has it if you can't get apt-get source to work11:32
cjwatson(Our processes are such that it's not possible for us to provide binaries in Ubuntu without the source also being available)11:33
cjwatsonIf you're having a technical problem with the build then #ubuntu-kernel will probably be better-able to help11:34
cjwatsonThe linux package doesn't break out its patches into separate files, but there's no GPL requirement for that - they're just applied directly to the unpacked source package that apt-get source linux gives you11:35
cjwatsonIf you're trying to trace individual patches then https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-kernel/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/bionic might be more helpful11:35
juliankWill be uploading aptdaemon in a minute11:40
juliankFxed the test suite11:40
juliankLet's turn all those red autopkgtests green again11:40
rbasakblackflow: what Colin says - we do publish the source, through the "apt-get source" mechanism. If you can't figure out how to use our tooling, then you're welcome to try and get help here, but your technical inability to deal with our preferred tooling is not a GPL violation and screaming about it here is only going to put people off helping you.11:40
rbasakblackflow: and no, there is no requirement in the GPL that binary packages include their sources. No binary distribution does that. We do publish the sources alongside in the apt repository, which has long been considered sufficient by all those in the community. Debian does it the same way.11:41
blackflowcjwatson: separate patches would be nice, but I can always diff myself, if I knew what to compare and I don't because the whole process is not transparent. Even now with the links you gave I am not sure which, of the gazillion links that follow from there, is the source code for the redistributed binary installed on my PC.11:41
rbasakblackflow: there is nothing special or obscure here. It works the same as any other Debian package.11:42
blackflowrbasak: fine, but published _where_. How do I find them.11:42
cjwatsonblackflow: The three files under Downloads11:42
cjwatson.orig.tar.gz, .diff.gz, .dsc11:42
cjwatsondpkg-source -x foo.dsc then unpacks that11:42
juliankthis is not rocket science11:42
blackflowrbasak: and that's not true. I found Debian's sources, with patches, with literally three links from packages.debian.org. I'v been trying to find the same/similar via LP for over an hour now.11:43
cjwatsonBut this is just the same as what apt-get source linux should already have given you (possibly modulo minor version differences)11:43
rbasakblackflow: packages.ubuntu.com also exists.11:43
juliankblackflow: Go to https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux11:43
juliankblackflow: Click the version11:43
juliankblackflow: There are three files under downloads11:44
juliankblackflow: Download them11:44
juliankblackflow: dpkg-source -x them11:44
juliankblackflow: And you are done11:44
blackflowjuliank: thanks.11:44
juliankIf you want the individual patches / commits on top of the combined diff, clone the git repository listed in Vcs-Git11:45
juliankor just do debcheckout linux11:46
juliankRan 79 tests in 58.138s11:46
juliankOK (skipped=22)11:46
juliankGotta SRU the test suite fixes with the other stuff, so we get proper SRUing for aptdaemon11:47
blackflowwel I don't need the patches per se as much as I need to find what exactly is Ubuntu adding to the kernel.org sources.11:47
blackflowwhich I would from teh patches, or, lacking them, from a diff, but for that I need it to be transparent enough to know what is what.11:48
juliankwell, that's in the .diff.gz11:48
juliankthe patches are applied directly to the upstream source from the .diff.gz11:48
juliankthere are no debian/patches11:48
blackflowI see. but is there no versioning tracker for those modifications?11:50
=== ricab is now known as ricab|lunch
juliankThere's a git repo11:50
juliankthe diff.gz is the diff from the git repo to the upstream one11:51
Unit193I believe the git repo was linked to you twice now.11:51
juliankthe git repo even has tags!11:51
blackflowUnit193: Yes, I'm looking through it right now.11:52
blackflowproblem is, this is a black box, nearly impossible to understand, to an outsider like me (and I'm not a noob in coding or contributing to open source packages). Of course this is easy for y'all, Dunning-kruger and all. It is extremely frustrating to someone else.11:53
blackflowand by "this" I mean the millions of repos, subrepos, links, tarballs, versions, subversions, etc... with no documentation or indication as to what is what.11:54
juliankIt's not a blackbox11:54
juliankit's standard tooling11:55
cjwatsonIt's an inherently complex system, though we're gradually working towards doing everything in a more consistent set of git repositories; it'll take time11:55
juliankIt's listed in Vcs-Git, it can't get easier than that11:55
juliankI want to find the source code: I run apt source linux; oh I want git, let me look at Vcs-Git11:56
cjwatson(Also I'm not quite sure that Dunning-Kruger is the study you're reaching for here, unless you're saying we're all too incompetent to know our own limitations, which doesn't make sense with the rest of your sentence)11:56
juliankooh it's there, let me clone that repo11:56
juliank-> done11:56
juliankworks on a lot of packages11:56
juliank(some do have debian vcs-git but ubuntu changes, but linux is not one of them)11:56
cjwatsonEventually "git ubuntu clone linux" will work consistently11:57
Unit193'linux' isn't the least complex either though, most packages just have changes stacked on top whereas linux acts more like a fork, I'd think.11:57
cjwatsonI don't know whether it yet does11:58
julianklinux is complex in that the signed binary is produced by linux-signed11:58
blackflowcjwatson: no I was referring to the other side of the effect. you're too skilled and too knowledgeable about these processes to understand how it looks like to someone who is not.11:58
juliankso source linux-image-$(uname -r) gives you the wrong package11:58
cjwatsonAs a matter of fact I do understand that it is complicated, but I think you're overstating somewhat based on my experience with other people11:58
juliankblackflow: this is basic debian packaging11:58
cjwatsonMost people don't jump straight to GPL violation :)11:59
cjwatsonWe're working on improvements11:59
cjwatsonBut throwing metaphorical rocks doesn't really help11:59
=== alan_g is now known as alan_g|lunch
blackflowno I stand behind what I said. this is all easy-pease, "standard this", "standard that", to someone who's neck-deep into the process for years. the violation is that somoene who got the binary part, does not have obvious access to the soruces. they're buried under layers and layers and layers of abstraction and redirection of a megaton of repos, subrepos, links, versions, ...12:01
blackflowsans teh typos.12:01
juliankno they're not12:03
juliankthe number of layers is the same as for debian to get to working source code12:03
juliankthen there is one more layer if you need individual changes12:03
cjwatsonYou're massively overstating things.  "apt-get source linux" gives you the source.12:03
cjwatsonThat's not a megaton of repos and subrepos and stuff.12:03
blackflowand yes, GPL _does_ require sources accompany the redistributed binary. Provision 3(A) of GPLv2 (under which the kernel is licensed). Unless you want to redefine the word "accompany".12:04
juliankAnd they do12:04
* cjwatson is out of this conversation since it isn't productive12:04
juliankBoth binaries and source are in http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/linux/12:05
juliankthey are also both in launchpad12:05
LocutusOfBorgblackflow, did you try... pull-lp-source linux bionic?12:05
LocutusOfBorgeasy, and works with every launchpad package/distro12:06
LocutusOfBorgin a consistent way12:06
LocutusOfBorgeven version12:06
LocutusOfBorgeven old version12:06
sladenblackflow: there is a significant overlap in people + technology + source code between Debian and Ubuntu: people who care about source availability and being able to recompile from scratch12:09
LocutusOfBorgI really don't get all this kind of troubles, apt-get source or pull-lp-sorce works both on my bionic machine, as well as dpkg-buildpackage seems to be running on kernel12:11
sladenblackflow: there are *multiple* versions of "the source code" for a package (ie. "linux" kernel), *and* multiple ways of obtaining the source code: which *exact* version, and which *exact* method is not working---we would love to fix it if there is something broken12:11
sladenblackflow: please can you past the *exact* commands being used: then we can help pin-point any errors12:12
rbasakblackflow: from a GPL compliance perspective, it's best to just consider "apt-get source" _the_ way of doing it. No other layers of abstraction. The same apt repository ships all sources for all its binaries, side-by-side.12:16
blackflowsladen: I got the diffs now (see above), after asking here.12:17
rbasakblackflow: if you think that's a GPL violation in itself because the sources aren't shipped inside the binary packages, then that's your opinion, but I don't think it would match the opinion of anyone involved, not even the FSF. Debian does it the same way, and I believe Trisquel (FSF-endorsed) probably does too.12:17
blackflowrbasak: no, I think the frustration to get to the sources is the violation.12:17
rbasakblackflow: what's wrong with "apt-get source"?12:18
blackflowbut neway, I got the diffs now, thanks.12:18
blackflowrbasak: which package name? :)12:18
blackflowbecause sources for linux-image-$(uname -r) ain't int12:18
rbasakblackflow: clearly it's not reasonable to block outsiders from access that insiders have. But I don't see how the GPL requires anything further than that.12:19
rbasakAs I say, I don't think that community consensus (across the entire ecosystem) expects anything further. Clearly the majority of people in the world won't know how to get the source regardless of what we do.12:19
rbasakThe only standard is that it's available to the same level that we access it ("preferred source")12:20
rbasakAnd we do meet that.12:20
juliankrbasak: the only real-ish problem is that linux-image is built by linux-signed and you need to figure out that it gets the binaries it signs from linux12:20
juliankthat's a small discoverability problem12:20
blackflowrbasak: maybe I'm just spoiled by distros like gentoo which have a very straightforward (and easily accessible) path to the sources (even if you forget teh fact that you literally get teh sources via portage first thing). after working with gentoo (and FreeBSD) packages and sources, I found myself in the Twisty Passages, all alike, in the Ubuntu world.12:20
rbasakblackflow: it could be better, yes. We're working on that. However it's not really significantly different from Debian (certainly any Debian developer wouldn't have a problem finding Ubuntu sources), and the reason it's like this is that Debian pre-dates all modern tooling.12:21
rbasak(unless you count CVS)12:21
sladenblackflow: please make a suggestion for how to make it *even* more "straight-forward"12:21
rbasaksladen: "where can I git clone the sources for package X from?"12:22
rbasakI think in the modern era that's a reasonable request.12:22
juliankportage is a lot less straight forward12:22
rbasakBut we (and Debian) predate git.12:22
juliankIt does not even ship the source code alongside the patches12:22
julianksame for freebsd ports12:22
sladenblackflow: would eg.    git clone ubuntu:linux    for straight-forward/enough, or could things be made even simpler?12:23
blackflowrbasak: it's much different (and easier) with Debian.  https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/linux-latest    and there's a Browse Source Code link on the right, poof done.   It is NOT like that in Ubuntu. The repo you linked above is not the one you get from the linux package in LP.12:24
rbasakblackflow: and how did you find tracker.debian.org?12:24
blackflowand I got to that tracker page easily, "Developer Information" from here: https://packages.debian.org/buster/linux-image-amd6412:24
blackflowso the binary package name led me to the source in three clicks.12:24
blackflowrbasak: I asked google, just like I asked google for Ubuntu.12:24
TJ-how about teaching apt-get source the option of using the Vcs-*: field of the package control file to do a suitable VCS clone of the source (which includes commit history) as opposed to just a snapshot fetch of the source as it does by default?12:25
Unit193TJ-: That's what `debcheckout` does.12:25
juliankTJ-: It tells you to use debcheckout12:25
juliankTJ-: Well, to git clone the repo12:25
juliankgit clone git://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-kernel/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/disco12:25
juliankto retrieve the latest (possibly unreleased) updates to the package.12:25
juliankis precisely what it says12:25
juliankblackflow: So, and for portage or freebsd ports it's _a lot_ harder12:26
sladenblackflow: equivalent of packages.debian.org is packages.ubuntu.com  https://packages.ubuntu.com/eoan/linux-image-generic12:26
TJ-juliank: isn't that only when you're already doing "apt-get source <package>" though? it's not the same as being able to do "apt-get  source --vcs <package>" which is what I'm suggesting12:26
LocutusOfBorgwith a "download source package" in only one click12:26
rbasakblackflow: start from https://packages.ubuntu.com/, search for the filename whose sources you're interested in, go to that package, see "Download Source Package" on the right.12:26
blackflowsladen: yes. And how many clicks to reach the source from there?12:26
LocutusOfBorgblackboxsw, ONE12:26
LocutusOfBorgone single click12:26
LocutusOfBorgdirectly on the page12:27
juliankTJ-: Well, yes, but you do have a Ctrl and a C key12:27
LocutusOfBorg"Download Source Package linux-meta: "12:27
blackflowno, that's for linux-meta12:27
juliankAnd the Debian one is for linux-latest12:27
LocutusOfBorgok two clicks12:27
LocutusOfBorgyou click on the actual package, in this case https://packages.ubuntu.com/eoan/linux-image-5.0.0-15-generic12:27
LocutusOfBorgand then download source package12:27
juliankit's impossible to get from the source code from there12:27
LocutusOfBorgstill one less click than debian12:27
blackflowLocutusOfBorg: still nope, that's linux_signed :)12:28
rbasakIn any case, I still insist that "apt-get source" is the cleanest way to get the source for the binary that you have just installed (for example), and that is a very well known mechanism.12:28
blackflowLocutusOfBorg: do you see my frustration now? :)12:28
rbasakWe don't control Google so it isn't reasonable to use Google against us just because it doesn't find it easily for you.12:28
juliankblackflow: Same problem in Debian12:28
LocutusOfBorgblackboxsw, one more click https://packages.ubuntu.com/eoan/linux-modules-5.0.0-15-generic12:28
LocutusOfBorgso equal to Debian :D12:28
juliankblackflow: Just that in Debian, your kernel package will be named linux-signed12:28
blackflowjuliank: I beg to differ. I found the debian source in three clicks. I've been looking for the correct one in LP for an hour before I came here, frustrated.12:28
juliankWell, linux-image-signed or something12:28
TJ-juliank: but the point of all this discussion is about ease of discoverability and capture even when unfamiliar with the Debian/Ubuntu packaging ecosystem. I'm suggesting teaching apt-get to do it, no matter what VCS the package uses (e.g. I have to read man-pages to refresh my mind if it's bazaar, or hg (mercurial).12:29
rbasakblackflow: as I said before, your personal inability doesn't make it a GPL violation.12:29
blackflowTJ-: sic!12:29
juliankTJ-: We're not going to run a command for you based on the control file12:29
juliankyou can check the command and run it yourself12:29
rbasakTJ-: the intention is that "git ubuntu clone" will do it correctly.12:29
juliankblackflow: YOu only found the Debian source package because you started from a different spot12:29
LocutusOfBorgand yes, sources.ubuntu.com and codesearch.ubuntu.com might be useful12:30
blackflowrbasak: but it's not just my personal inability. this is clear and easy for you because you're familiar with the processes and all the repos. It is totally a black box to anyone who is not.12:30
juliankIf you started from Debian's signed kernel image, you'd end up with the same issues12:30
rbasakThough the complexity of mapping for signed kernel packages I don't have a great solution for, except that I hope that one day "git ubuntu clone" will take a file on the local system as input.12:30
sladen...the discussion about how to make finding source *even easier* (than three clicks) is useful to have.   The discussion about not complying the GPL is not useful.  Please try to keep conservation focused on useful suggestions and input12:30
TJ-rbasak: OK, so can we teach apt-get to wrap that or state it in help/man-page *before* we've already tried "apt-get source <package>" ?12:30
juliankAlso, if you get linux-signed you can read the code and figure out where to go next12:30
rbasakTJ-: I don't think apt is the right tool for this kind of thing any more.12:30
rbasakTJ-: we should document it somewhere, but we should tackle the place that people decide they want to use apt in the first place.12:31
sladeneg.   man linux-source12:31
rbasakTJ-: if you care about higher level stuff like package mappings, then apt is too far down the stack already.12:31
Unit193rbasak: The fourth result for 'ubuntu linux kernel' for me was https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/SourceCode.  Regardless, I don't see this discussion going anywhere and only expect it'll devolve more.12:32
TJ-rbasak: Users go to apt by default for package management; moving away from that just introduces more confusion, as the whole bazaar debarcle demonstrated.12:33
juliankUnit193: that page is wrong12:33
Unit193juliank: Git section looks right.12:33
juliankbut the other one is not12:33
juliankgotta have unsigned somewhere in there12:34
rbasakTJ-: I'm not sure what bazaar thing you're referring to, but regardless, apt is about packages in the repository. apt doesn't know (by design) anything above that, such as semantic (as opposed to depends/recommends etc) relationships between packages.12:34
sladenblackflow: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+filebug  Please can you file a bug with the title "Make Linux source code even easier to find", and past the bug number here: we can then help to fill out the rest with ideas, and will be able to get back in to contact with you with suggestions are being proposed12:34
rbasaksladen: I'm not sure that's the right place. Maybe the Ubuntu top level project? Because (presumably) no fix can be made in the linux package itself to solve this.12:35
TJ-rbasak: some packages moved to bazaar VCS, then that got abandoned by some and it became almost impossible to reliable determine where to find the correct source. LP especially made that even more difficult with so many out-of-date repos.12:35
sladenrbasak: man page12:36
rbasakTJ-: the correct source has always been the source package, since that is the single source of truth12:36
rbasaksladen: potentially, but it isn't obvious that's the correct answer, and the answer may be something other than in the linux package.12:36
TJ-rbasak: that's silly; most of the time we require the source to see the commit history for e.g. bug-hunting, regression, etc.12:36
sladenrbasak: then we can move it as soon as blackflow has successfully opened the bug report12:36
Unit193TJ-: Unfortunately, in Debian even the maintainer declared vcs-* fields can be out of date, it's the nature of relying on people that some things are forgotten.12:36
juliankwe should have hooks for apt source12:36
juliankso linux images can hook in and say "you probably want linux not linux-signed"12:37
juliankonly linux has that problem12:37
TJ-Unit193: so a deficiency in the process. Maybe there are ways to automate inclusion of the correct Vcs tag?12:37
sladenlinux is special ...12:37
sladenperhaps a contributing factor12:38
blackflowsladen: against what?12:38
rbasakTJ-: I'm trying to fix that with git ubuntu. I still maintain that apt isn't the right place to solve this.12:38
Unit193TJ-: git-buildpackage and other tools do make it easy, but if people no longer use git, move repos without noting, or simply forget to push...12:38
sladenblackflow: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+filebug  would open it against linux.  COuld also, per suggestion of rbasak file it against the top level "Ubuntu".  But we can shuffle it around as sooner is we have the bug number12:38
juliankI still maintain that git-ubuntu is not the solution12:39
TJ-rbasak: that's fine; what I'm saying is apt should tell us *before* we do "apt-get source <package>" there is a better method, not as an aside whilst it is already downloading the source package12:39
rbasaksladen, blackflow: just don't get offended by the autoreplies you get from filing the bug against the linux package, please.12:39
julianklike it's OK as a fallback, but you usually want a proper git-buildpackage repo12:39
juliankit's just another more convenient layer to get the uploaded source packages :)12:40
rbasakIf you are an individual package maintainer you probably want a separate repo, yes.12:40
rbasakBut if you are a drive by contributor then what you want is a consistent view, and separate repos that follow their own policies are not hat.12:41
rbasakIncidentally, I have a plan to make it possible for your "proper git-buildpackage repo" to _be_ the git ubuntu repo.12:41
rbasakBut that's quite far down the road.12:41
Unit193That seems to favor drive-by people over reg contributors..12:41
juliankAlso, grab-merge is still a lot easier than git-ubuntu12:42
rbasakRegular contributors know what they're doing and so don't need to use defaults.12:42
TJ-rbasak: the reason I suggest *before* is that frequently, when I'm travelling with a poor/limited Internet connection, I chose to pull in and browse source related to some bug I'm investigating. So it is frustrating for at least 2 reasons: 1) source download starts before 'apt-get source' tells me where the packaging Vcs is, and 2) Manually trying to discover the authoriative source-code repo for the12:42
TJ-binary package version I'm investigating12:42
rbasakjuliank: history proves you wrong on that. Start using git-ubuntu for merges and you'll continously discover merge errors made by people using grab-merge.12:42
Unit193TJ-: apt-cache showsrc $pkg  will show you before you `apt-get source`12:42
rbasakjuliank: (since grab-merge provides no easy way to check for correctness and humans make mistakes)12:43
cjwatsonsladen: please remember that when you recommend such URLs to a non-developer they're going to run straight into https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs#Filing_bugs_manually_at_Launchpad.net; better to give an appropriate URL to bypass that, especially when the discussion is already contentious12:43
juliankI run grab-merge, edit the conflicts, generate two debdiffs (old and new), then diff the debiffs, and if that looks right, I upload12:43
blackflowrbasak: you got any more insults before I wrap this up?12:43
TJ-Unit193: yes, but many casual investigators/bug hunters don't know that. If that is so then 'apt-get source' (or its help/man-page) should state that explictly where it is easily discoverable.12:43
rbasakjuliank: "if that looks right" --> often it looks right but is wrong12:43
juliankI don't want to split out individual commits and do rebasing for a simple merge, it's just _a lot_ of effort12:43
Unit193TJ-: Also if you are on a limited connection, you can ctrl+c out of the download.12:44
rbasakgit-ubuntu doesn't _require_ you to split out commits.12:44
rbasakIf you wish, just use git rebase directly.12:44
TJ-Unit193: indeed, but that is a kludge, not a solution to discoverability12:44
rbasakThat's essentially precisely what MoM does.12:44
juliankThat only works for throw away the git and upload the dsc scenarios though12:45
Unit193TJ-: As I noted, the proper discovery is apt-cache showsrc, or just `debcheckout`.12:45
juliankif I want to git ubuntu submit it, people will get nasty12:45
rbasakjuliank: I think we're conflating a bunch of things here.12:45
rbasakjuliank: there's git-ubuntu the set of imported repositories. There's the MP flow that the server team is using. And there's the merge workflow the server team is using.12:45
rbasakjuliank: they don't all have to be used together.12:46
Unit193rbasak: I don't suppose git-ubuntu is packaged yet?12:46
rbasakjuliank: you can use the set of imported repositories only, do it locally using git, and (as a core dev with no peer review requirement) just upload it, if you wish. Nobody will know if you used MoM/grab-merge or git-ubuntu12:46
juliankrbasak: Right, but that means you lose git history12:47
rbasakUnit193: it is a snap. Packaging in the apt repository is insanely hard because of edge case behaviours in dpkg and that kind of thing.12:47
Unit193Hrm, so it isn't. :/12:47
juliankalso, I think the end goal is to nto upload, but just push?12:47
rbasakjuliank: no different from MoM. If keeping git history is a requirement for you, then clearly MoM/grab-merge is unacceptable by that definition.12:47
rbasakUnit193: what do you mean by "it"? The imported repositories are still available :)12:48
TJ-Unit193: I feel we're talking at corss-purposes here. The information is there, yes, but it is buried in a lot of other info. If you don't already know what to look for (not initimately familiar with Debian packaging) it can easily be missed. What I'm suggesting is making discovering the Vcs for the specific binary package  an explicit option of some (apt) tool12:48
juliankrbasak: well, yes, but with git-ubuntu there's a history I can render less useful that was not there before12:49
Unit193rbasak: git-ubuntu was what I was referring to.12:49
rbasakjuliank: I don't follow. From my perspective you seem to keep changing your position. What's your actual position?12:49
juliankMy position is that in order to be considerate to heavy users of git-ubuntu, I have to follow git-ubuntu best practices12:49
juliankeven if I personally don't care about that12:49
rbasakjuliank: you mean when you do package merges?12:50
rbasakjuliank: or other times too>?12:50
juliankI guess when merging only12:51
juliankor when importing a new upstream version maybe, idk?12:51
rbasakI don't think a new upstream version going in without rich history would bother anyway.12:51
sladencjwatson: sure.  What URL would be better to give to blackflow?12:51
juliankIt's one reason I did not merge multipath-tools last cycle; because it is maintained in git-ubuntu, shared with server team; and the process annoys me a lot12:52
rbasakIt is true that if someone is maintaining (multiple package merges) a particular package using git-ubuntu, then it'll be a pain if you stomp in and do a package merge without the git-ubuntu package merge process, because that'll flatten the breakdown of commits as well as any changes you make.12:52
rbasakWhat we want preserved is the rich version of the Ubuntu delta. We don't care how you get to that.12:53
cjwatsonsladen: If you're going to direct somebody to file a bug directly against an Ubuntu package where "ubuntu-bug" is inappropriate or not useful, then you need to add ?no-redirect to the end.  But I can't say I'm hugely convinced that the maintainers of the linux source package specifically are in a good position to improve this12:53
cjwatson(However I don't really want to get sucked into debating that, so ...)12:54
juliankcjwatson: one thing I sometimes stumble upon is that'd I'd like to have https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/<binary>12:54
sladencjwatson: ah yes, kudos for spotting lack of ?no-redirect12:54
rbasakIf you flatten that, then for a more complex delta I think it's quite right for people to be upset. That isn't git-ubuntu specific though, that's just a quality thing on doing complex package merges in maintainable way.12:54
juliankredirecting me to the source package12:54
juliankbecause sometimes I have a binary, and I don't want to do a source package lookup locally first12:55
Unit193Like the tracker does.  I hit the tracker, then click the 'ubuntu' button for that. :P12:55
rbasakjuliank: note that the binary->source mapping changes12:55
rbasakSo you'd need to qualify it somehow to disambiguate, or define some disambiguation algorithm in any case.12:55
juliankLook at latest series first, and go downward until you find a match12:56
juliankit works reasonably well for Debian tracker12:56
rbasakThat wouldn't be helpful to users who might be on the previous LTS with a different mapping.12:56
rbasakI suppose you could add a UI to ask which the user means.12:56
rbasak(as it's a web UI already)12:57
cjwatsonjuliank: Well, they obviously couldn't go under +source.  There actually are binary URLs, but they're some of the worst-linked URLs in LP (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/amd64/linux-image-4.15.0-50-generic)12:57
juliankcjwatson: Well, I do want the source package for a given binary12:57
rbasakAh yes, because arch matters too :)12:57
juliankLike https://tracker.debian.org/apt-utils redirects me to https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/apt12:57
cjwatsonYeah, but it still can't be in +source for name-clash reasons12:57
cjwatsonI agree we could do better12:58
juliankWell, if there's a name-clash the source package wins12:58
Unit193juliank: I have an alias in my browser, pts apt-utils  will take me there, as uts apt  will take me to the +source page.12:59
cjwatsonDo file a bug against LP about that, but please in a solution-neutral way (i.e. state the problem that getting from binary to source is harder than it should be, not your specific proposed solution)12:59
cjwatsonIf we were adding something that was potentially ambiguous between binary and source package names then it would need to be in a different bit of URL namespace12:59
cjwatsonlaunchpad.net does a lot more varied things than tracker.debian.org does though, and it has to curate its URL namespace a good deal more as a result13:01
cjwatsonGrabbing whole chunks of arbitrary namespace has historically turned out to be a mistake13:01
cjwatsone.g. there's some awkwardness in git URLs because bzr URLs claimed too much of the namespace and that turned out to be a problem n years later13:02
cjwatsonjuliank: Also maybe somebody could consider setting up a tracker instance for Ubuntu?  It seems as though it'd be pretty useful, and it wouldn't have to have the same URL namespacing concerns that LP has13:08
cjwatsontracker.ubuntu.com would be a nice thing to have13:09
juliankprobably needs a lot of work to get something useful13:09
cjwatsonhttps://qa.pages.debian.net/distro-tracker/admin/vendor.html   looks like it has at least been considered13:10
cjwatsonAnd I see that https://pkg.kali.org/ exists which looks like the same codebase13:10
=== alan_g|lunch is now known as alan_g
=== ricab|lunch is now known as ricab
blackflowsladen: so the summary of everything is... which package/project should I file a bug against? I know my way around LP and how to file without ubunt-bug13:21
sladenblackflow: Plese a bug against "Ubuntu" (eg. the "I don't know" option).  Once the bug report is filed, and we have the bug number, it can be repointed13:22
blackflowk, thanks13:23
=== waveform_ is now known as waveform
blackflowsladen: is bug #1830379 acceptable?13:48
ubottubug 1830379 in Ubuntu "It is not clear how to install sources for the running kernel" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/183037913:48
sladenblackflow: thank you!13:53
blackflowplease let me know if you want me to word it differently.13:53
sladenblackflow: wording appears to be fairly neutral and factual.  Thank you13:54
coreycbseb128: is there any chance we can push my software-properties change through first since the other has regressions.14:04
seb128coreycb, you mean?14:04
seb128coreycb, the other is in bionic-updates, rolling got stopped because it has new e.u.c reports14:05
seb128I don't think so no14:05
coreycbseb128: ah so the regressions are in -updates14:05
seb128we could stack your changes with the other fixes14:05
seb128but I think we better fastrack the regressions fixes14:05
rbasakblackflow: that bug report looks fine, thanks. I'm not sure you can expect anyone to work on it, but at least it's a place for discussion.14:05
coreycbseb128: either option is ok i guess. happy to help stack if you want to go that route.14:06
seb128coreycb, I'm doing a SRU, will probably use 8.1 then but I'm unsure what to do with the vcs14:06
seb128there are enough dot, I'm going to do another .914:07
seb128then we rebase yours as .1014:07
coreycbseb128: ok14:08
seb128I'm pondering going back to .8 in the vcs, doing my changes and pushing --force14:08
coreycbseb128: i don't care either way. i would prefer to stack mine in if possible since it's tiny and blocking the cloud archive.14:08
seb128bdmurray, tjaalton, other SRU team mamber around?14:09
seb128I want to do a software-properties/bionic upload to fix some regressions with the previous SRU (which is bionic-updates)14:10
seb128is that fine if that upload includes that change as well? http://launchpadlibrarian.net/423881822/software-properties_0.
blackflowrbasak: agreed.14:21
seb128bdmurray, tjaalton, could you review https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=software-properties ? it fixes some regressions from the SRU that moved to -updates earlier this week and a fix the cloud team is waiting on, would be good to have it in proposed today so we don't delay too much the regression fixes (like we can maybe talk about moving to -updates after the weekend)15:15
seb128coreycb, ^15:15
seb128coreycb, I pushed -f to the bionic branch, you might want to refetch that15:15
bdmurrayseb128: I got it15:17
coreycbseb128: thanks!15:29
=== Wryhder is now known as Lucas_Gray
seb128bdmurray, thx17:48
raghu_i'm new to open source,interested in contributing to ubuntu can someone help me out with links for getting started page, documentation page, beginner friendly bugs19:13
sladenhello raghu_: best place is to "scratch an itch".  ie. is there a piece of software, an application, or a menu that you are already using---but perhaps a translation is not quite right, or there is a small bug19:19
sladenraghu_: it much easier to start, and drill down with something you already know + care about; then to just generically ask19:19
ahasenackdannf: hey, is updating freeipmi on your radar? If not, I was about to start19:26
dannfahasenack: go for it :)19:26
ahasenackwe missed updating it for 19.0419:26
ahasenackok, updated the mom page19:27

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!