[08:14] <seb128> could a SRU member review the xwayland fix in the J queue?
[08:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libreoffice (focal-backports/main) [1:7.3.5-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~bpo20.04.1 => 1:7.3.6-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~bpo20.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[08:25] <sil2100> ...why is germinate being an ass?
[08:26] <LocutusOfBorg> mwhudson, hello, when a new glibc upload?
[08:27] <LocutusOfBorg> there is that ld.so output change that broke cmake build, it was reverted upstream, it broke also nuitka and other tools
[08:27] <LocutusOfBorg> should we expect an upload with new git stable branch updates?
[08:31] <LocutusOfBorg> mwhudson, we need this https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=1e903124cec4492463d075c6c061a2a772db77bf
[08:48] <mwhudson> LocutusOfBorg: probably 10 days or so
[08:49] <LocutusOfBorg> ack
[08:49] <LocutusOfBorg> maybe so I just avoid fixing it
[10:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: flash-kernel (jammy-proposed/main) [3.104ubuntu12 => 3.104ubuntu13] (core)
[11:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tableau-parm (jammy-proposed/universe) [0.2.0-6 => 0.2.0-6build0.1] (no packageset)
[11:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zfcp-hbaapi (jammy-proposed/universe) [2.2.0-0ubuntu1 => 2.2.0-0ubuntu1.1] (no packageset)
[14:00] <Odd_Bloke> Hey folks, I'm running into some people internally who are looking at Ubuntu's docs and confused about when bionic stops receiving free security updates: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases refers to "End of Standard Support" and "End of Life", but those terms are not defined anywhere therein.  I feel like a couple of sentences could help clarify that, but the page is immutable so I can't add them
[14:00] <Odd_Bloke> myself.
[14:10] <rbasak> Odd_Bloke: sorry, I don't want to touch that as the wording there was very carefully thought out AIUI. Does the section below under "Extended Security Maintenance" not adequately explain it?
[14:29] <ebarretto> Odd_Bloke, rbasak the link on the top page: https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle should help clarify things
[14:30] <Odd_Bloke> rbasak: I don't think people are scrolling down that far: they find the first mention of their release on the page, they read the EoL date, they move on.
[14:31] <Odd_Bloke> ebarretto: Sure, I'm not saying it's impossible for people to figure this out, I'm saying that it's very easy to get the wrong impression from the wiki page as it is now, and a sentence or two of explanatory text could improve Ubuntu users' experience substantially.
[14:34] <ebarretto> Odd_Bloke, yeah, I agree, my first reaction was to scroll down and see if standard support was mentioned in that wiki again, and only later I clicked the top link
[14:35] <Odd_Bloke> And, honestly, even that linked page isn't very useful: "standard support" is only mentioned once, in the key of a graph as "Interim release Standard Support"
[14:35] <Odd_Bloke> And "end of life" is not mentioned at all.
[14:40] <ebarretto> Odd_Bloke, you should check the image under maintenance and security updates
[14:53] <Eickmeyer[m]> Has anybody had a chance to look at FFe bug 1989263 yet?
[14:53] <Odd_Bloke> ebarretto: I used to work for Canonical, _I_ know how this works: my point is that the release team's wiki page is unclear about the security support that people will receive, which is going to result in insecure Ubuntu systems because people don't realise they aren't getting patches after "standard support" ends.
[14:57] <rbasak> I'm reminded of https://devguide.python.org/documentation/style-guide/#economy-of-expression and the final paragraph of https://devguide.python.org/documentation/style-guide/#audience. I don't mean to argue if the current text is right or wrong, just that if somebody got confused, that doesn't mean the documentation is bad.
[14:57] <rbasak> doesn't *necessarily* mean, to be clear.
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: qemu (jammy-proposed/main) [1:6.2+dfsg-2ubuntu6.4 => 1:6.2+dfsg-2ubuntu6.5] (ubuntu-server, virt)
[15:03] <Odd_Bloke> That page also says "Lay out the relevant information" and "provide glossary links", which is all I'm asking for here!
[15:57] <spidermonkey> Hello everyone! I've got a question about packaging 'propagation' between Debian and Ubuntu
[15:58] <spidermonkey> If there is a universe package in Ubuntu 22.04 that has just received a bug fix in its Debian version, will this somehow land in Ubuntu universe in the fixed version?
[16:03] <schopin> spidermonkey: not automatically. The propagation (sync) from Debian to Ubuntu is only done at the beginning of development for the new series, i.e. the *next* release.
[16:06] <spidermonkey> Is there a possibility to ask for this to be done manually, and if so, how tiny are the chances this goes through if it only has been fixed in a new upstream release instead of a pure bug-fix one?
[16:06] <rbasak> spidermonkey: note that we can manually sync the package though, if it contains bugfixes only.
[16:06] <rbasak> Right
[16:06] <spidermonkey> Well that's a pity
[16:07] <rbasak> We can also cherry-pick a fix
[16:07] <spidermonkey> I believe it was a problem in build configuration
[16:07] <rbasak> If it's not suitable for sync, because in Kinetic we are in feature freeze to stablize for release.
[16:08] <rbasak> Exceptions can be made, but it all depends on the situation.
[16:08] <spidermonkey> The package in question is linphone-desktop, maybe the real package responsible for the bug is libmediastreamer11 though
[16:08] <rbasak> The goal is that we stabilize for release now, so generally we want bugfixes only.
[16:09] <spidermonkey> There are two Ubuntu bug reports
[16:09] <spidermonkey> bug #1974163
[16:10] <spidermonkey> bug 1960137
[16:10] <spidermonkey> And one Debian bug report which has just been fixed in the new upstream release https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=979044
[16:11] <spidermonkey> So technically I believe it would be possible to create a working version without using the upstream one, but in this case Ubuntu universe would then diverge from the Debian repositories I guess
[16:12] <rbasak> That's normal. We'll reconverge after release (which is a manual step to make sure we don't regress a feature or bugfix we added in our delta).
[16:16] <spidermonkey> Okay. In this case I should probably ask the Debian maintainer first if there is a reason why this is not fixed in their repositories?
[16:16] <spidermonkey> Because a bugfix release of them would probably be better than diversion?
[16:19] <rbasak> They have fixed it though, no?
[16:19] <spidermonkey> They have fixed it in the upstream version, but as far as I can see there isn't a pure bugfix release for Debian stable or testing
[16:19] <rbasak> Oh, only in experimental?
[16:20] <spidermonkey> experimental, then unstable
[16:20] <spidermonkey> I think I see why
[16:21] <spidermonkey> It was a build problem, but the missing library apparently wasn't packaged at all – there now is a new package and probably this is why this won't land in stable
[16:21] <rbasak> It's fixed in unstable
[16:21] <rbasak> I think?
[16:21] <spidermonkey> Yes
[16:21] <rbasak> So I don't think there's anything further for the Debian maintainer to do that will help Ubuntu.
[16:22] <rbasak> It looks like mediastreamer2 hasn't migrated to testing in Debian either.
[16:22] <rbasak> So this might be non-trivial to fix in Ubuntu. It'd need a deeper investigation to figure out if a minimal fix is possible in Ubuntu.
[16:23] <spidermonkey> I'm often confused about this so excuse my question but if no bugs are found, unstable packages are migrated to testing after a certain time, right?
[16:23] <rbasak> There are a bunch of other checks, too
[16:24] <rbasak> See https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/linphone%2Ddesktop - particularly under "excuses"
[16:24] <spidermonkey> It is a very recent fix
[16:29] <spidermonkey> But just to understand the process: Before feature freeze you would sync Debian testing packages to Ubuntu universe, after a release you normally only propagate bugfix releases and this is done manually. Is that correct?
[16:31] <rbasak> Before feature freeze we automatically sync packages from Debian unstable provided that we haven't added a delta to the Ubuntu package, in which case that needs to be resolved manually. After syncing the package still needs to go through https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ProposedMigration which is similar to the Debian unstable->testing process.
[16:31] <rbasak> After feature freeze all changes are manually done by Ubuntu developers. We can still sync, if appropriate and within our freeze policies.
[16:31] <rbasak> Ubuntu developers may add a delta at any time (again, within our own release policies, of course).
[16:39] <spidermonkey> Okay. As far as I can see, this means Ubuntu 23.04 will nearly certainly have a Linphone version with the issue fixed, but Jammy and Kinetic are very unlikely to adopt the fix because they would need an entirely new package
[16:40] <spidermonkey> Plus either a recompiled version of the currently used libmediastreamer11, which would cause a diversion, or a whole bunch of new upstream packages
[16:43] <spidermonkey> I'd think a new package probably wouldn't affect stability – if it wasn't there before, nothing relying on it can break; and there is exactly one application, divided over multiple packages, using it afterwards – but I guess you will keep these tasks to a minimum for addressing really bad stuff
[16:45] <spidermonkey> So thank you for your explanations, I might see if I can get it to work locally but an official bugfix then is out of question if I see it correctly
[16:46] <jbicha> spidermonkey: could you file a Launchpad bug with explanations and lists of affected packages for kinetic? Kinetic isn't as frozen as Jammy is yet
[16:47] <spidermonkey> Yes I can. Shall I append to the existing bugs or shall I create a new one?
[16:48] <jbicha> I think a new bug would be easier to understand since this sounds like it has several parts to it
[16:49] <jbicha> spidermonkey: I think you should follow the Feature Freeze exception process here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess
[16:50] <spidermonkey> But for Kinetic still?
[16:51] <jbicha> yes https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2022-August/001319.html
[16:52] <spidermonkey> Reading the exception process documentation, do I have to get a current Kinetic image and test it there? My current abilities to install another OS, even as a VM, are limited
[16:53] <jbicha> someone needs to test that these packages build and then make sure that at the end, linphone appears to work ok
[16:54] <spidermonkey> I'll see what I can do
[16:57] <rbasak> spidermonkey: thank you for looking into this. I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but to be clear, we do generally want to fix bugs. It's a question of what the trade-off looks like in terms of risk to regressing something somewhere else, and who's willing to volunteer what amount of work to take steps to mitigate risk. Exceptions can be made - ultimately the decision is down to the Ubuntu
[16:57] <rbasak> release team to make.
[17:00] <spidermonkey> Very well, I appreciate much of this is volunteer work. I'll file a bug and see how much testing I can do myself.
[17:14] <fheimes71> hi, could s/o with 'superpowers' please re-trigger a test for me? https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/xfCsVFGj8n/
[17:25] <jbicha> fheimes71: done
[17:28] <fheimes71> jbicha - thx!
[18:39] <seb128> bdmurray, if you do an SRU could you review xwayland/J?
[18:40] <bdmurray> seb128: I'll certainly try!
[18:42] <seb128> bdmurray, thanks
[18:42] <seb128> could a release team member check on https://code.launchpad.net/~seb128/britney/+git/britney/+merge/429834 ?
[18:43] <seb128> at-spi2-core tests now require gedit and python3-gi stack which is creating an issue on i386, it's not a regression just it's doing more than it used to and the new requirement don't fit what is installable atm on the arch
[18:56] <hellsworth> bdmurray: Hey Brian, there's an SRU I care about and have tested. Any chance of getting this in proposed soon?
[18:56] <hellsworth> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-tweaks/+bug/1988276
[19:00] <bdmurray> hellsworth: its in -proposed already and has been there since 2022-09-08. We generally wait 7 days for the SRU to "age". Is there is a reason it should be accepted into -updates early?
[19:01] <hellsworth> sorry no. i tested it from proposed and then I was just looking to push it along. Once it gets into -updates, I have a blog post that is ready to go out that uses this updated tweaks.
[19:02] <hellsworth> sorry for the spam then. i can be patient :)
[19:02] <bdmurray> Well feel free to spam again on Thursday if it somebody else doesn't release it.
[19:02] <hellsworth> sounds good :)
[19:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted xwayland [source] (jammy-proposed) [2:22.1.1-1ubuntu0.2]
[19:11] <seb128> bdmurray, thanks!
[19:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon (bionic-proposed/primary) [1.9~18.04.1]
[19:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon (focal-proposed/primary) [1.9~20.04.1]
[19:49] <coreycb> hello release team, I'd like to bump alembic in kinetic from 1.7.6 to 1.8.1. it has several useful fixes and is mostly used by openstack packages.
[19:52] <bdmurray> coreycb: Is there an open FFe bug regarding the update?
[19:53] <coreycb> bdmurray: there isn't but I can create one
[19:55] <bdmurray> coreycb: That would be helpful
[20:02] <coreycb> bdmurray: I've opened up bug 1989507
[20:22] <Eickmeyer[m]> Release team! Any chance I can get a quick ack on FFe bug 1989263?
[20:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: iputils (focal-proposed/main) [3:20190709-3 => 3:20190709-3ubuntu1] (core)
[22:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: edk2 (jammy-proposed/main) [2022.02-3 => 2022.02-3ubuntu0.22.04.1] (ubuntu-server)