[08:28] <cpaelzer> didrocks: Hi, today MIR meeting is (due to different TZ-DST moves) a conflict for me, do you think you could today lead the IRC meeting?
[08:29] <didrocks> cpaelzer: hum, I might be unavaible at the time this week, let’s hope for slyon?
[08:30] <didrocks> or we can move it like 30 minutes before/after
[08:38] <cpaelzer> yeah, if it is you+slyon (not around yet and might not join)+me there is almost no one left and sarnold might lead a lonely meeting
[08:39] <cpaelzer> 30 min later works for me and might be a better try for today then
[08:39] <cpaelzer> rescheduling
[08:39] <cpaelzer> hmm, doko still is the organizer of the meeting
[08:40] <cpaelzer> doko: could you bump todays MIR meeting 30 minutes back pleas (4.30 -> 5)?
[08:45] <didrocks> sounds like a good plan to me
[14:32] <cpaelzer> actually I can make the session today
[14:32] <cpaelzer> and nothing was rescheduled yet
[14:34] <cpaelzer> so let us stick to the original schedule then
[15:30] <sarnold> good morning
[15:31] <slyon> o/
[15:31] <joalif> o/
[15:32] <slyon> cpaelzer: are you around?
[15:36] <slyon> well... I guess it's me again then. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionProcess#MIR_Team_weekly_status_meeting (But I'm not prepared)
[15:36] <slyon> #startmeeting Weekly Main Inclusion Requests status
[15:36] <meetingology> Meeting started at 15:36:16 UTC.  The chair is slyon.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[15:36] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[15:36] <slyon> #topic Review of previous action items
[15:36] <slyon> IIRC we did not have any previous action items, so let's move on
[15:36] <slyon> #topic current component mismatches
[15:37] <slyon> Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams
[15:37] <slyon> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg
[15:37] <slyon> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg
[15:37] <slyon> let's start with the -release mismatches
[15:38] <slyon> the libreoffice->epiphany-browser dependency seems to be pulling in some more stuff. But epiphany-browser was a false positive, so I guess we don't need to care about libsou3 or sysprof either
[15:38] <sarnold> that epiphany-browser one is ... not great. I understand that's brought in because firefox is going away on some of the architectures we support
[15:39] <sarnold> how do we convey to our users that that browser isn't going to get the same level of security support as eg firefox on a platform that mozilla cares about?
[15:39] <slyon> sarnold: do you have any more information about that? (firefox going away on some arches), because I think didrocks said it would be a false positive
[15:40] <sarnold> slyon: hmm maybe it was only discussed on irc..
[15:41] <sarnold> I think #ubuntu-desktop Wed 09 19:24:54 < Wimpy> This is because libreoffice-help-en-us Recommends firefox | firefox-esr | epiphany-browser | konqueror | chromium-browser | chromium
[15:42] <slyon> hm hm. So it might not be a false-positive after all, but be related to firefox dropping some arches.
[15:42] <sarnold> https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/03/09/%23ubuntu-desktop.html#t19:23
[15:42] <sarnold> yeah
[15:42] <cpaelzer> thanks slyon, here only now
[15:43] <slyon> sarnold: as didrocks doesn't seem to be here, could you try to reach out to him later and try to clarify this, to bring it to the desktop team's attention?
[15:43] <sarnold> nabend cpaelzer :)
[15:43] <slyon> o/ cpaelzer – you can take over after the component-mismatches if you want :)
[15:44] <sarnold> these version numbers aren't super-encouraging, you know? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/epiphany
[15:44] <slyon> I agree
[15:44] <sarnold> a steady stream of 0.7.0 for eight years .. I'd feel *very* awkward about pretending that epiphany is a  supported browser in any way
[15:44] <cpaelzer> "universe" it is
[15:45] <slyon> yes, we need a comment from the desktop team about that ^^^ didrocks
[15:45] <cpaelzer> it is a false positive
[15:45] <cpaelzer> he told me last time
[15:45] <sarnold> I know we kicked around the idea of replacing epiphany's dependency with w3m; at least that's already in main :) (I'm not sure how, but..)
[15:45] <cpaelzer> sorry, i'm still context switching this in
[15:46] <slyon> yes, but sarnold had some new info about that (firefox not being available on all arches anymore), so it potentially isn't a false positive after all
[15:46] <cpaelzer> as you already said "firefox | firefox-esr | epiphany-browser | konqueror | chromium-browser | chromium" could be fulfilled
[15:46] <cpaelzer> so let us go on
[15:46] <cpaelzer> hmm
[15:47] <cpaelzer> indeed
[15:47] <slyon> but let's wait for a comment from the desktop team and move on to -proposed mismatches
[15:47] <cpaelzer> ok, no I have gotten through all backlog
[15:47] <cpaelzer> we know tat didrocks has a conflict now
[15:47] <cpaelzer> he will read the backlog later
[15:47] <cpaelzer> and be around next week when the DST crazyness has passed
[15:47] <slyon> in -proposed we have the gdb->source-highlight
[15:48] <sarnold> the nested dropdown boxes on https://snapcraft.io/firefox say amd64, arm64, armhf
[15:48] <cpaelzer>  firefox | 98.0.1+build2-0ubuntu0.21.10.1 | impish-updates  | source, amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, s390x
[15:48] <cpaelzer>  firefox | 1:1snap1-0ubuntu1              | jammy           | source, amd64, arm64, armhf
[15:48] <cpaelzer> gdb would be foundations, did you hear about that before slyon?
[15:48] <slyon> there is an old ACKed mir for source-highlight and it is foundations owned. So I'll investigate what's happening there after the meeting
[15:48] <slyon> didn't hear anything about it, but I will check.
[15:49] <slyon> I think all the others are known false-positives
[15:49] <slyon> (or in progress)
[15:49] <cpaelzer> I agree
[15:49] <slyon> cpaelzer: do you want to go on with the new MIRs?
[15:49] <cpaelzer> sure
[15:49] <cpaelzer> #topic New MIRs
[15:49] <cpaelzer> Mission: ensure to assign all incoming reviews for fast processing
[15:49] <cpaelzer> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/?field.searchtext=&orderby=-date_last_updated&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&assignee_option=none&field.assignee=&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir

[15:50] <sarnold> \o/
[15:50] <cpaelzer> great, we can focus on those we already have
[15:50] <cpaelzer> #topic Incomplete bugs / questions
[15:50] <cpaelzer> Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams
[15:50] <cpaelzer> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/?field.searchtext=&orderby=-date_last_updated&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir
[15:50] <cpaelzer> rust I had a discussion with schopin, nothing to act on for us atm
[15:50] <cpaelzer> nftables is still going on
[15:51] <cpaelzer> but also nothing to act for us atm
[15:51] <cpaelzer> #topic MIR related Security Review Queue
[15:51] <cpaelzer> Mission: Check on progress, do deadlines seem doable?
[15:51] <cpaelzer> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/+bugs?field.searchtext=%5BMIR%5D&assignee_option=choose&field.assignee=ubuntu-security&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir
[15:51] <sarnold> though I think sbea ttie wouldn't mind a review on the symbols changes he made to nftables..
[15:51] <cpaelzer> you think he wants that
[15:51] <sarnold> lol
[15:52] <cpaelzer> we usually 80% trust people saying "I have done this" until it is ready to re-check if all is done
[15:52] <sarnold> well, yes, I think some of the consequences of not getting it quite right might mean a (potentially needless) SO bump in the future, and that sounds like hassle we'd rather avoid
[15:52] <sarnold> so I do think he'd like feedback before we bake it into an lts
[15:52] <cpaelzer> ok I can have an extra look tomorrow
[15:52] <sarnold> thank you :)
[15:53] <cpaelzer> the security review list is important
[15:53] <cpaelzer> we have two major ones needed soon
[15:53] <cpaelzer> swtpm
[15:53] <cpaelzer> and glusterfs
[15:53] <cpaelzer> the latter isn't on the list anymore as it is assigned
[15:53] <sarnold> alas news isn't quite so groovy on the sceurity backlog; swtpm is still in progress, but much of the team is currently off on the "burn your vacation days by the end of march" side quest
[15:53] <cpaelzer> but those are both important for the Jammy LTS
[15:53] <cpaelzer> and people (= me and others) get afraid if the review presents a list of things to fix too late we might have issues
[15:54] <sarnold> aye, just yesterday I ran across a coverity-discovery in swtpm that feels like it deserves an update
[15:54] <slyon> what's the timeline for swtpm? Steve's out this week, but is tracking this issue as a priority
[15:54] <slyon> so he should get to it next week I guess (if that's soon enough?)
[15:54] <cpaelzer> sarnold: I have already an MP up fixing that issue you found and more and improving the apparmor rules
[15:54] <sarnold> that's a good question :/ with as many people out as there are I'm liable to need to respond to a lot more questions than usual..
[15:55] <sarnold> cpaelzer: oh sweet :) there's some great upsides to being globally distributed :)
[15:55] <cpaelzer> hehe
[15:55] <cpaelzer> sarnold: but really, given that 28th (Monday) is beta freeze we'll actually need glusterfs/swtpm kind of this week'ish
[15:55] <sarnold> anyway I will work my way through swtpm and really hope to get it done this week
[15:55] <sarnold> ouch
[15:55] <cpaelzer> ok I feel you have swtpm under control, close to the deadline but  under control
[15:56] <cpaelzer> what can we do about glusterfs?
[15:56] <cpaelzer> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glusterfs/+bug/1950321
[15:56] <cpaelzer> sarnold: is s_beattie also eliminating remaining PTO days ?
[15:57] <sarnold> cpaelzer: yes, exactly; I think he'll be back monday, but I'm not 100% positive on that date
[15:58] <cpaelzer> hrm, i'm not mad enough trying to get people back from deserved vacation but @sarnold could you ensure that the team and him is aware once back that this is as asap as possible by now?
[15:59] <sarnold> cpaelzer: yes -- I do wonder when the next kernel usn is due.. those always take an eternity to prepare, and drive a lot of the update machinery around the world :(
[16:00] <cpaelzer> I do not know either when they spin things again
[16:00] <cpaelzer> I just want the priorities of these (swtpm/glusterfs) very clear which I think we have by now
[16:00] <cpaelzer> thanks
[16:00] <cpaelzer> #topic Any other business?
[16:00] <slyon> nothing
[16:01] <cpaelzer> starting next week, less daylight-saving confusion
[16:01] <sarnold> I saw some discussion in #debian-rust about the debian golang team moving away from built-using:
[16:01] <joalif> cpaelzer: this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-bluetooth3/+bug/1964600
[16:01] <joalif> I have the review almost ready, just polishing it
[16:01] <cpaelzer> great joalif
[16:01] <joalif> but it mentions it need to go to main really soon now
[16:01] <joalif> like in 2 days
[16:01] <sarnold> they were asking the rust folks if they might change the rust-specific similar field to use a common shared field for both rust and golang
[16:01] <cpaelzer> joalif: does it look like "should be fine" or is it rather complex and discussion worthy?
[16:02] <joalif> I just mention it
[16:02]  * didrocks is back
[16:02] <sarnold> there's probably nothing to do with this field immediately, but it's something to keep an eye on if they actually change it ;)
[16:02] <cpaelzer> didrocks: welcome, please read the backlog about libreoffice above and tell us the answer
[16:02] <cpaelzer> sarnold: yes I've heard about it - schopin even pinged us in the rust-rules PR
[16:02] <sarnold> yay! :D
[16:03] <cpaelzer> he will track this discussion and let us know if there is an outcome that matters to us
[16:03] <didrocks> cpaelzer: sarnold: slyon: false positive from what seb told me, but he wanted to check again, I’m going to get the status
[16:04] <cpaelzer> didrocks: but did you see the point of "since snaps are not on all arch, it might no more be false positive" ?
[16:04] <slyon> joalif: I think they can request a FFe in parallel to the MIR, so I'm not sure about the March 24 deadline
[16:05] <joalif> ok
[16:05] <didrocks> cpaelzer: we will still have the package as a transitional upgrade AFAIK
[16:05] <didrocks> so for this cycle, things should stay as they are
[16:05] <didrocks> but I will double check
[16:05] <cpaelzer>  firefox | 1:1snap1-0ubuntu1              | jammy           | source, amd64, arm64, armhf
[16:06] <didrocks> ah, that changed indeed
[16:06] <cpaelzer> no ppc/s390x - who would build those now?
[16:06] <didrocks> ok, I’ll get back to the desktop distro team and check with them
[16:06] <cpaelzer> yeah and this is
[16:06] <cpaelzer> Version: 1:1snap1-0ubuntu1
[16:06] <cpaelzer> Pre-Depends: debconf, snapd
[16:06] <cpaelzer> Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0
[16:07] <cpaelzer> Breaks: firefox-dbg (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-dev (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-geckodriver (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-mozsymbols (<< 1:1snap1)
[16:07] <cpaelzer> Replaces: firefox-dbg (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-dev (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-geckodriver (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-mozsymbols (<< 1:1snap1)
[16:07] <cpaelzer> so I really think this might be a problem now, sarnold suggested to put w3m in there (being in main even) as better dependency
[16:07] <cpaelzer> after all this is only a recommends from the help-packs
[16:07] <sarnold> (someone else mentioned it, it just caught my fancy :)
[16:07] <cpaelzer> nothing really that functional
[16:07] <cpaelzer> ok sarnold, honor to whoever it was :-)
[16:07] <cpaelzer> and thanks didrocks for rechecking it with the team
[16:08] <cpaelzer> and it seems also thanks for doing the precedence case for deb-to-snap arch dependency issues :-/
[16:08] <didrocks> yw, will keep you posted
[16:08] <cpaelzer> seems we are done then
[16:08] <didrocks> yeah :/
[16:08] <cpaelzer> slyon: you opened, you have to close it
[16:08] <cpaelzer> thank you all!
[16:08] <sarnold> https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/03/10/%23ubuntu-desktop.html#t17:46
[16:08] <didrocks> thanks!
[16:08] <slyon> thanks!
[16:08] <sarnold> thanks cpaelzer, slyon, all :)
[16:09] <joalif> o/
[16:09] <cpaelzer> #endmeeting
[16:09] <cpaelzer> as I said, mine has no power
[16:09] <slyon> #endmeeting
[16:09] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 16:09:29 UTC.  Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2022/ubuntu-meeting.2022-03-22-15.36.moin.txt
[16:09] <slyon> :)
[16:09] <cpaelzer> here we go
[17:20] <didrocks> cpaelzer: FYI, as I’m not around next week, ricotz will upload 7.3.2~rc2 that downgrades the recommends to suggests as there is no other way around to have a real GUI browser as alternative on all archs now
[19:41] <ddstreet> rbasak i'll defer from responding to your email on the list, since the TB meeting is in 20 minutes...i'll answer there, assuming the charter is discussed
[19:43] <rbasak> ddstreet: sure, thanks.
[20:00] <rbasak> o/
[20:00] <rbasak> sil2100: around?
[20:00] <rbasak> I don't see cyphermox here, and v_orlon sent his apoligies
[20:00] <sil2100> o/
[20:01] <sil2100> I am, but only semi-around unfortunately
[20:01] <sil2100> I see that you have shared the working document for the third party repository requirements, right?
[20:01] <rbasak> Yeah I copied that across just now
[20:01] <rbasak> Still awaiting feedback on the current drafts please
[20:02] <sil2100> Should we skip today's meeting and instead maybe I could take some time to browse it through?
[20:02] <rbasak> Yeah I think that makes sense
[20:03] <rbasak> Unless ddstreet would prefer to discuss his request on the backporters team charter in realtime?
[20:03] <ddstreet> i'm happy to, if there are any questions
[20:03] <rbasak> Or would you prefer to contine on the ML?
[20:03] <ddstreet> up to you rbasak
[20:03] <rbasak> If you're happy on the ML, let's continue there for now then please
[20:03] <ddstreet> ok
[20:04] <rbasak> When you think ML discussions are concluded, and if you then want a TB decision, then please add it to our meeting agenda at that point.
[20:11] <ddstreet> rbasak ok i replied on the ML, but i think it's up to you to decide when the discussion is concluded? that's not really something for me to decide
[20:11] <ddstreet> i'll add it to the TB agenda for next meeting