| mwhudson | vorlon: i think you forgot to push the tag when you uploaded livecd-rootfs | 00:26 |
|---|---|---|
| vorlon | mwhudson: I didn't forget, but maybe there was a failure I didn't pay attention to | 00:27 |
| vorlon | $ git push --tags | 00:27 |
| vorlon | Everything up-to-date | 00:27 |
| mwhudson | vorlon: well ok. ubuntu/master has 2.895 as UNRELEASED | 00:27 |
| vorlon | um | 00:28 |
| mwhudson | which i realize isn't quite what i first said | 00:28 |
| vorlon | mwhudson: oh I see, I failed to commit it, so pushing did nothing | 00:29 |
| vorlon | this is all git-ubuntu's fault | 00:29 |
| vorlon | (for not being able to replace our standalone livecd-rootfs branch ;) | 00:29 |
| mwhudson | well | 00:30 |
| mwhudson | i suppose i should make my out of control shell script i use for uploading things work nicely with git-ubuntu repos | 00:30 |
| vorlon | oh no Debian is removing stale i386-only packages that emulate game consoles | 00:32 |
| vorlon | not sure Debian should keep the i386 arch around at all if it's not needed for zsnes, really | 00:35 |
| schopin | RikMills: there's something going on in Debian in plasma vs glibc 2.37 in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1040140 . Do you know if we had similar reports for Lunar? | 08:00 |
| -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Debian bug 1040140 in libc6 "libc6: upgrade libc6 to version 2.37-3 break plasma desktop (X11/Wayland)" [Important, Open] | 08:00 | |
| === JanC_ is now known as JanC | ||
| slyon | @pilot in | 11:01 |
| === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic Open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Bionic-Lunar | Patch Pilots: slyon | ||
| === cpaelzer_ is now known as cpaelzer | ||
| === JanC is now known as Guest5729 | ||
| === JanC_ is now known as JanC | ||
| halves | hello ubuntu-devel! I'm a little confused on a version for an SRU I'm working on, and would like to double check it with a more experienced dev. it's for adsys on Kinetic, which currently has version 0.9.2. given this is a native Ubuntu package, what would the next version string look like for an SRU? | 15:15 |
| slyon | @pilot out | 15:16 |
| === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic Open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Bionic-Lunar | Patch Pilots: N/A | ||
| halves | if I follow the security team's "UpdatePreparation" page/table, it seems a candidate would be 0.9.2ubuntu0.1. I've looked at the other stable releases for adsys, and noticed that they seem to follow the pattern of "~YY.MM.X" (e.g. 0.9.2~20.04.1 for focal) | 15:16 |
| halves | so I'm wondering if for the next Kinetic update, we should follow this same version scheme as well. does that make sense? | 15:17 |
| slyon | hey halves! There's some nice documentation on that, which you can find here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation#Update_the_packaging | 15:17 |
| slyon | let me check your specific case.. | 15:17 |
| halves | slyon thanks! that's the page I was looking at, the table there is quite helpful indeed | 15:17 |
| halves | it does seem to suggest a different version scheme for the other releases though, which is where my confusion started (i.e. 0.9.2ubuntu0.1 vs 0.9.2~22.10.1) | 15:18 |
| slyon | halves: do I understand correctly that the SRU contains just some small fixes for adsys 0.9.2, not any new upstream version, right? | 15:18 |
| halves | slyon that's correct | 15:19 |
| slyon | we use the ~22.10.1 suffix usually when we "backport" a newer version from a more recent Ubuntu version. E.g. Lunar might contain 0.9.2 while kinetic might contain 0.9.2~22.10.1 | 15:20 |
| slyon | in this case it's not a backport (just some small fixes) and recent Ubuntu version have newer upstream versions of adsys already, so I'd rule out the ~22.10.1 suffix | 15:20 |
| slyon | And go with 0.9.2ubuntu0.1 instead | 15:21 |
| halves | awesome! that makes sense, thank you slyon! | 15:22 |
| slyon | Oh, we even have that special case with the Jammy version here. | 15:22 |
| slyon | Having 0.9.2~22.04.1 (jammy) < 0.9.2ubuntu0.1 (kinetic) < 0.11.0 (lunar) should work just fine! | 15:23 |
| halves | yes, for this specific SRU though we're also targeting jammy, but it won't break the version ordering | 15:26 |
| halves | thanks again, slyon! | 15:27 |
| slyon | halves: right. To apply similar fixes to Jammy, you'd just continue with the existing versioning scheme, e.g.: 0.9.2~22.04.2 | 15:29 |
| slyon | Or alternatively, do a full backport of your previous Kinetic SRU, which would lead do: 0.9.2ubuntu0.1~22.04.1 -- both cases would work, but the former is more common | 15:31 |
| kanashiro[m] | @pilot in | 17:03 |
| === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic Open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Bionic-Lunar | Patch Pilots: kanashiro[m] | ||
| gilles_ | Hi, I was looking to get a package, namely mailman3, that was excluded from 22.04 due to now-resolved compatability issues back into Ubuntu, preferably in 22.04 itself. I'm not really familiar with packaging though, I was wondering if anyone had some pointers as to where I could start with this? | 17:18 |
| kanashiro[m] | gilles_: at this point, you need a good reason to introduce a package to a stable release. I am not familiar with the mailman3 package, but I think you might have dependency issues on the way | 17:32 |
| bluca | slyon: did you have any luck looking at the netplan.io autopkgtest failures? | 17:34 |
| bluca | they are blocking both systemd and iproute2 now | 17:34 |
| gilles_ | kanashiro[m]: I believe it should work without too many dependency issues, see https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mailman3/+bug/1999197/comments/7 (+ some of my own poking around as to why it was removed and what has changed) | 17:45 |
| -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1999197 in mailman3 (Ubuntu) "mailman3 package missing in jammy, however mailman3 package from Debian 11 works with the other mailman3 packages from Jammy" [Undecided, Confirmed] | 17:45 | |
| gilles_ | But yes, I'm not completely clear on what the procedures for this would even be, and I can't really get a properly clear image of what is or isn't possible from the wiki | 17:45 |
| kanashiro[m] | gilles_: as you may have seen this was the reason of mailman3 removal: LP #1960547 . If you check the Debian's tracker page (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mailman3) you will see that it is still looking for help, and at the moment it is marked for autoremoval by the end of the month. I am not sure the situation described in the removal bug changed that much. | 17:58 |
| -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1960547 in mailman3 (Ubuntu) "please remove mailman3, mailman-hyperkitty" [Undecided, Fix Released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1960547 | 17:58 | |
| gilles_ | kanashiro[m]: Thanks for pointing that out, I had missed it completely. I'll dig a little more to see if it's something I (or my org) can work on or if we should look into other options. Thanks! | 18:02 |
| kanashiro[m] | I just pulled the mailman3 version from mantic and rebuilt it in jammy, it works without any issue, so that's a good sign at least | 18:03 |
| kanashiro[m] | gilles_: since a straight backport of the version in mantic works in Jammy we have increased our chances to get it back in jammy :) we can try a one-time SRU to re-introduce the package. I am running autopkgtest locally to see if I can spot any issue | 18:06 |
| kanashiro[m] | gilles_: all tests are passing, I think we can give it a try if you are still interested. You could do the paper work which means updating the bug description (LP #1999197) to add the SRU bug template (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#SRU_Bug_Template), and I can handle the package changes for you. Be aware that some action from you will be required to test the package in case the archive admins/SRU team decide to accept | 18:18 |
| kanashiro[m] | the package (Test plan section in the SRU bug template). | 18:18 |
| -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1999197 in mailman3 (Ubuntu) "mailman3 package missing in jammy, however mailman3 package from Debian 11 works with the other mailman3 packages from Jammy" [Undecided, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1999197 | 18:18 | |
| kanashiro[m] | If you decide to do so, let me know, once you update the bug, I can review it and prepare the package to be uploaded | 18:19 |
| gilles_ | kanashiro[m]: I'm definitely interested in doing the paperwork, might take a while but I'll update you once I've done it. Thanks for helping me get started! | 18:27 |
| kanashiro[m] | gilles_: great! You are more than welcome :) | 18:28 |
| kanashiro[m] | @pilot out | 21:04 |
| === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic Open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Bionic-Lunar | Patch Pilots: N/A | ||
| mwhudson | er | 21:58 |
| mwhudson | livecd-rootfs in proposed is broken? | 21:58 |
| mwhudson | ah https://code.launchpad.net/~mwhudson/livecd-rootfs/+git/livecd-rootfs/+merge/446003 | 22:16 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!