[12:25] <didrocks> I will probably skip the MIR meeting today. I have nothing special to report.
[14:00] <joeubuntu> Here for the MIR meeting.
[14:02] <doko> hi
[14:04] <doko> cpaelzer, jamespage, cyphermox ?
[14:05] <doko> starting with https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg
[14:05] <jamespage> o/
[14:06] <doko> jamespage: could you file issues for nova/netcat?
[14:06] <doko> cpaelzer: cloud-init/ifupdown2
[14:07] <cpaelzer> here
[14:07] <doko> cpaelzer: logcheck/esmtp
[14:08] <doko> didrocks: xorg/xterm, libnotify/sugar,
[14:09] <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
[14:10] <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
[14:11] <jamespage> doko: done for nova/netcat - I don't think its even needed
[14:13] <doko> feel free to drop it instead
[14:18] <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
[14:19] <doko> cpaelzer: https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.txt
[14:19] <doko> Provides: ifupdown
[14:20] <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?
[14:21] <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
[14:22] <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
[14:23] <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
[14:26] <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?
[14:27] <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
[14:28] <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
[14:29] <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
[14:30] <doko> I didn't check before the meeting, is any existing MIR missing review?
[14:31] <cpaelzer> not from us
[14:32] <doko> joeubuntu: any updates for security reviews?
[14:34] <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?
[14:37] <doko> do we want a meeting next week, or skip until January?
[14:38] <didrocks> I'm on holidays starting tomorrow
[14:40] <doko> there doesn't seem to be much interest ... let's skip
[14:40] <doko> and finish for today
[14:42] <didrocks> thx :)
[14:45] <cyphermox> o/ sorry
[14:46] <cyphermox> why is cloud-init depending on ifupdown2? that's sounds very very wrong
[14:48] <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
[14:49] <cyphermox> it's a full rewrite, I don't know that it's quite the same
[14:50] <cyphermox> anyway, the story is I doubt we really want to MIR ifupdown2
[14:51] <Odd_Bloke> I think we're all in agreement there. :p
[14:51] <cyphermox> yup ;)
[15:59] <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
[17:05] <Odd_Bloke> cpaelzer: Were you trying to ping Matthias?  Because... you didn't. ;)
[23:47] <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
[23:48] <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.