| didrocks | I will probably skip the MIR meeting today. I have nothing special to report. | 12:25 |
|---|---|---|
| joeubuntu | Here for the MIR meeting. | 14:00 |
| doko | hi | 14:02 |
| doko | cpaelzer, jamespage, cyphermox ? | 14:04 |
| doko | starting with https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg | 14:05 |
| jamespage | o/ | 14:05 |
| doko | jamespage: could you file issues for nova/netcat? | 14:06 |
| doko | cpaelzer: cloud-init/ifupdown2 | 14:06 |
| cpaelzer | here | 14:07 |
| doko | cpaelzer: logcheck/esmtp | 14:07 |
| doko | didrocks: xorg/xterm, libnotify/sugar, | 14:08 |
| cpaelzer | for cloud-init I'll start with a cloud-init bug if they really want this | 14:09 |
| cpaelzer | but I'll file the others as placeholders pointing to that one - to be found by AAs | 14:09 |
| doko | which MIRs are pending reviews? | 14:10 |
| cpaelzer | nut sure if we want esmtp for logcheck | 14:10 |
| cpaelzer | that came in via a sync | 14:10 |
| cpaelzer | we'll sort it out if we drop the dependency instead of a MIR | 14:10 |
| jamespage | doko: done for nova/netcat - I don't think its even needed | 14:11 |
| doko | feel free to drop it instead | 14:13 |
| cpaelzer | doko: how did cloud-init get that report? | 14:18 |
| cpaelzer | the one in focal doesn't have a ifupdown2 dependency | 14:18 |
| cpaelzer | and that is the same version SRUed to Xenial-Eoan | 14:18 |
| doko | cpaelzer: https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.txt | 14:19 |
| doko | Provides: ifupdown | 14:19 |
| cpaelzer | doko: ah now I see, cloud init has "netplan.io | ifupdown" | 14:20 |
| cpaelzer | and netplan is in main | 14:20 |
| cpaelzer | how do we usually handle those cases? | 14:20 |
| cpaelzer | it has a valid package in main fulfilling that dependency in every release | 14:21 |
| cpaelzer | up to Disco it was ifupdown and since bionic it is netplan | 14:21 |
| cpaelzer | and netplan is listed first | 14:21 |
| cpaelzer | so the problem is that the alternate dependency puts it on the component mismatches | 14:21 |
| cpaelzer | that also explains how it could already migrate into the -release pocket | 14:22 |
| cpaelzer | can we just ignore it then, any guidance on what cloud-init is supposed to do to avoid being listed there? | 14:22 |
| cpaelzer | the package is tried to be the same across releases | 14:22 |
| doko | cpaelzer: netplan.io is seeded in eoan, but not anymore in focal? | 14:23 |
| cpaelzer | netplan.io is seeded from bionic onwards | 14:23 |
| cpaelzer | and ifupdown from the dawn of time up until disco | 14:23 |
| doko | maybe component-mismatches gets confused by the provides | 14:26 |
| cpaelzer | yeah I'd think so | 14:26 |
| doko | add it to extra-excludes? | 14:26 |
| cpaelzer | if that is the common solution, I can open an MP | 14:27 |
| cpaelzer | and logcheck is the same case - it depends on 'mail-transport-agent' which has a provides in many places | 14:27 |
| cpaelzer | esmtp is one of them | 14:27 |
| cpaelzer | but so is e.g. postfix | 14:28 |
| cpaelzer | doko: I can add extra excludes for them if you tell me that is the way to resolve that | 14:28 |
| cpaelzer | doko: but that leaves my confort zone, so I want you to tell me it is the right way :-) | 14:28 |
| * didrocks will ask in the desktop meeting | 14:28 | |
| doko | I'll check with colin maybe | 14:29 |
| cpaelzer | doko: ok, let me know once you know the path that I should let these server packages take then | 14:29 |
| doko | I didn't check before the meeting, is any existing MIR missing review? | 14:30 |
| cpaelzer | not from us | 14:31 |
| doko | joeubuntu: any updates for security reviews? | 14:32 |
| joeubuntu | doko - 6 in progress the remainder in queue, we meet 2x a month with server/foundations to review priority and progress. a few more sec engineers are taking on MIRs to get the queue down again. | 14:34 |
| doko | anything else for today? | 14:34 |
| doko | do we want a meeting next week, or skip until January? | 14:37 |
| didrocks | I'm on holidays starting tomorrow | 14:38 |
| doko | there doesn't seem to be much interest ... let's skip | 14:40 |
| doko | and finish for today | 14:40 |
| didrocks | thx :) | 14:42 |
| cyphermox | o/ sorry | 14:45 |
| cyphermox | why is cloud-init depending on ifupdown2? that's sounds very very wrong | 14:46 |
| Odd_Bloke | cyphermox: cloud-init depends on `netplan.io | ifupdown` and ifupdown2 provides ifupdown. | 14:48 |
| cyphermox | *sigh* | 14:48 |
| cyphermox | I posit that's probably wrong | 14:48 |
| Odd_Bloke | "that"? | 14:48 |
| cyphermox | ifupdown2 providing ifupdown | 14:48 |
| cyphermox | it's a full rewrite, I don't know that it's quite the same | 14:49 |
| cyphermox | anyway, the story is I doubt we really want to MIR ifupdown2 | 14:50 |
| Odd_Bloke | I think we're all in agreement there. :p | 14:51 |
| cyphermox | yup ;) | 14:51 |
| cpaelzer | dodk: if possibel please answer on bug 1855557 once you ahve the answer hwo to handle the component-mismatches due to provides | 15:59 |
| ubottu | bug 1855557 in cloud-init (Ubuntu) "please drop ifupdown depedency" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1855557 | 15:59 |
| Odd_Bloke | cpaelzer: Were you trying to ping Matthias? Because... you didn't. ;) | 17:05 |
| xnox | cyphermox: Odd_Bloke: we have removed i386 arch specific packages, yet cloud-init and ifupdown2 are arch:all and it is a bug that they are (a) published in i386 archive (b) used by components missmatches to promote things | 23:47 |
| xnox | cpaelzer: my bug report was slightly tigential to the components missmatches being buggy. | 23:48 |
| xnox | cpaelzer: Odd_Bloke: as a product, Ubuntu, no longer supports ifupdown and thus on Ubuntu platform cloud-init should not allow any but netplan.io network rendering. | 23:48 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!
