[14:30] * slyon lightning the MIR camp fire o/ [14:30] good morninig [14:31] c_paelzer is busy today. So let me run the meeting. [14:31] #startmeeting Weekly Main Inclusion Requests status [14:31] Meeting started at 14:31:14 UTC. The chair is slyon. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology [14:31] Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick [14:31] Ping for MIR meeting - didrocks joalif slyon sarnold c_paelzer jamespage ( eslerm dviererbe ) [14:31] #topic current component mismatches [14:31] Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams [14:31] #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg [14:31] #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg [14:32] the component-mismatches report is still outdated. Last run was about a week ago. sil2100 is coordinating with IS to get it resolved. [14:32] o/ [14:32] There's not much we can do. No news in the old reports. [14:32] #topic New MIRs [14:32] Mission: ensure to assign all incoming reviews for fast processing [14:32] #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 [14:32] the review queue is empty. [14:32] #topic Incomplete bugs / questions [14:33] Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams [14:33] #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 [14:33] bug #2080965 is basically ready [14:33] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Bug 2080965 in architecture-properties (Ubuntu) "[MIR] architecture-properties" [Low, Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2080965 [14:33] but waiting for some -dev packages exclusion discussion (more on that later) [14:34] (no security review needed) [14:34] bug #2058192 [14:34] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Bug 2058192 in OEM Priority Project "[MIR] lenovo-wwan-unlock" [Critical, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2058192 [14:35] eslerm suggested this package should move to the OEM archive. I talked to sil2100 but he couldn't help a lot. We need to coordinate with the OEM team directly, then he can drop it from multiverse/restricted (if desired). [14:35] The updates on the LP bug suggest that the OEM team might be interested in keeping it in the primary archive, still. [14:36] hey, sorry for all the roadmap to blast over MIR meetings [14:36] BTW I've followed up on wsdd as you pinged me last week - thanks [14:37] wsdd https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wsdd/+bug/2070025 [14:37] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 2070025 in wsdd (Ubuntu) "[MIR] wsdd" [Undecided, In Progress] [14:37] let me ask them to address the comments made by didrocks on the bug report, as that would be a minimal requirement for main/restricted inclusion [14:39] thanks slyon :) [14:40] comment added. [14:40] thanks for moving wsdd forward, cpaelzer ! [14:41] I also moved this one forward, which is now ready for a seed change https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xdg-terminal-exec/+bug/2069308 (cc jbicha) [14:41] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 2069308 in xdg-terminal-exec (Ubuntu) "MIR xdg-terminal-exec" [Undecided, In Progress] [14:41] #topic Process/Documentation improvements [14:41] Mission: Review pending process/documentation pull-requests or issues [14:41] #link https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pulls [14:41] #link https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues [14:42] sarnold: could you confirm this is working for you? https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pull/68 then we could merge it [14:42] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Pull 68 in canonical/ubuntu-mir "Fix visually broken flowchart (#67)" [Open] [14:42] oo moment.. [14:42] I wasn't able to continue on the Rust docs, https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pull/66 – would love to adopt/recommend the s390-tools way of doing it, but didn't get to it this week between all the other stuff [14:42] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Pull 66 in canonical/ubuntu-mir "Import Rust vendoring document" [Open] [14:44] which leaves us with only one (new) issue: https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues/69 and I'd love to see senior MIR people chime in on this (cc cpaelzer didrocks jamespage) [14:44] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Issue 69 in canonical/ubuntu-mir "Do we benefit from having the dev binary packages promoted?" [Open] [14:44] I had some discussions about this with seb128 today, after the architecture-properties MIR in https://launchpad.net/bugs/2080965 [14:44] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 2080965 in architecture-properties (Ubuntu) "[MIR] architecture-properties" [Low, Incomplete] [14:45] why is that even a big problem? [14:45] the "by default" is only the auto-include meant to cover things that are usually not picked up by direct dependencies [14:45] that is the set of -doc and -dev [14:45] but AFAIK it was always ok to opt-out by adding an extra-exclude [14:46] we have a case of libglib2.0-dev depending on a new "architectures-properties" tool that mostly a helper script for cross-building [14:46] Surely this comes from a time when the support on universe was not yet as good, community not as mature and pro did not yet exist to cover universe [14:46] back than it was more important to move those to main if it was possible [14:47] but if there are conflicts and problems, and really the only thing that puts the -dev/-doc into main is the auto-incliude [14:47] then just go for adding an exclude [14:47] If I understand correctly, the question is "do we still want to try to promote these by default" right? [14:48] right. I guess that's true for "normal" packages. But "Demoting libglib2.0-dev isn't easy because it's a low level libraries that most other desktop dev libraries depends on." So the desktop team would need to maintain a long-tail of -dev exclusions [14:48] or get their -dev dependencies included in "main" [14:48] correct cpaelzer [14:48] If other things "really" depend on it (not just the auto-inclusion), then yes it should stay in main IMHO [14:49] about the issue of maintaining long tails [14:49] we faced similar issues in server when some packages had too much content in a few packages [14:49] like 50 plugins of which only 2 really were prime time [14:49] there we ended up splitting the package [14:50] and the one that stayed in main has much more reasonable dependencies than the former huge super-package [14:50] I do not know the libglib2.0-dev situation, but could something like that help there too? [14:50] cpaelzer: smell like a similar story than gstreamer plugins :) [14:50] I need to check the germinate output to see what exactly is pulling in libglib2.0-dev. [14:51] slyon: I’m afraid you will end up with a long list of -dev packages depending on libglib2.0-dev [14:51] gtk being one, for instance [14:51] But do I understand correctly, that you suggest instead of doing the MIR for a new build-tool dependency we should rather work with Extra-Excludes? [14:52] the one that is accoutned for in germinate is libaccountsservice-dev , but there might be more than that as didrocks says [14:52] yeah, germinate will only points to the "first" one that it founds IIRC [14:52] correct [14:52] you "fix" it, then goes to the next… [14:52] right. [14:53] slyon: If that -dev package has no deep purpose or reason on it's own to be in main - AND only is in for auto-include. Then an auto-exclude is ok AFAIK [14:53] there are -dev which contain tools that are needed, others are actually always linked in so they are actually active code, ... - these would not qualify [14:53] but if it really is a normal -dev mostly having headers but not more [14:53] then an exclude if it causes pain might be ok [14:54] and agreed [14:54] but one would need to work back the chain e.g. the aforementioned libaccountsservice-dev [14:54] and add them all [14:54] ensuring that NONE of them has a deeper purpose [14:54] -doc is a similar story BTW [14:55] often pulling in weird tools to build yet another special markdown language [14:55] another approach is to patch so that architectures-properties can be downgraded to a suggests [14:55] Yes... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/architecture-properties/+bug/2080965 might have a deeper purpose potentially, it provides the "architecture-is-64bit" or "architecture-is-big-endian" meta packages. but OTOH we didn't need it in main up to now [14:55] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 2080965 in architecture-properties (Ubuntu) "[MIR] architecture-properties" [Low, Incomplete] [14:55] as it’s "only" for cross-arch builds from what you discussed? [14:55] https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/+git/ubuntu/commit/?id=4c41750b is an approximation of the number of excludes you would need [14:55] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Commit 4c41750 in ~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/+git/ubuntu "Extra-Exclude: drop the sysprof exclusions" [14:56] it also provides a wrapper around qemu-user to execute cross-architecture tests for example [14:56] it's incomplete because it would take me a few rounds with an archive admin to ensure we got everything [14:56] the "Build-Dependencies not necessarily in main" thing was kinda intended to help us keep sphinx and the like from getting messy [14:58] Okay. ovearll it seems like there's no consensus for changing the defaults to exclude -dev packages. And we should rather work out the issues case-by-case. Do we want to vote on this? [14:59] Maybe we can do that on Github, so we can move on with the meeting. [14:59] #topic MIR related Security Review Queue [14:59] Mission: Check on progress, do deadlines seem doable? [14:59] Some clients can only work with one, some with the other escaping - the URLs point to the same place. [14:59] #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 [14:59] #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/+bugs?field.searchtext=[MIR]&assignee_option=choose&field.assignee=ubuntu-security&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir [14:59] Internal link [14:59] #link https://warthogs.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/SEC/boards/594 [14:59] sarnold: are you still keeping up the pace? [15:01] sorry, distracted .. [15:01] I see rpds-py is now in progress (cc jamespage) [15:02] \o/ [15:02] the velocity is not what it was, but yes, progress is still being made on some packages [15:02] Okay. We're over time already. So do we have anything else? [15:02] https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues/67 [15:02] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Issue 67 in canonical/ubuntu-mir "Flowchart seems a bit broken" [Closed] [15:02] at least that, thanks [15:03] #topic Any other business? [15:03] (sorry, wrong paste-buffer above) [15:03] sigh, I thought I had something, but i've gone blank. :/ [15:04] not from me [15:04] sarnold: next time you remember it, create an issue on the ubuntu-mir github. so you don't have to remember it :) [15:04] lol [15:04] lol [15:05] :P [15:05] thanks slyon for driging in these roadmappy times [15:05] umm "driving" [15:05] if nothing else, thats all, folks! [15:05] thanks slyon, all :) [15:05] #endmeeting [15:05] Meeting ended at 15:05:24 UTC. Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2024/ubuntu-meeting.2024-09-24-14.31.moin.txt [19:00] o/ [19:00] o/ [19:01] o/ [19:01] Looks like amurray is to chair today according to the Agenda? [19:02] #startmeeting Ubuntu Technical Board [19:02] Meeting started at 19:02:00 UTC. The chair is amurray. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology [19:02] Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick [19:02] #topic Apologies [19:02] I would like to apologize for my absence last time [19:02] o/ [19:02] I was supposed to appear, but somehow I ended up distracted enough to miss it... [19:02] thanks sil2100 - no worries [19:03] no apologies that I can see for todays meeting [19:03] #topic Action review [19:03] ACTION: vorlon to look into scripting for packages in flavor-specific overlays [19:04] looks like vorlon is not around - will carry-over [19:04] #action vorlon to look into scripting for packages in flavor-specific overlays [19:04] ACTION: vorlon to look into scripting for packages in flavor-specific overlays [19:04] ACTION: seb128 to continue working with SRU, AA, Release, Backporters and Security teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations [19:04] carry-over please [19:05] #action seb128 to continue working with SRU, AA, Release, Backporters and Security teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations [19:05] ACTION: seb128 to continue working with SRU, AA, Release, Backporters and Security teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations [19:05] On the above... [19:05] Note that the SRU team documentation now includes a section on that, so I think this is done for the SRU team. [19:05] I guess I should link to it from the wiki [19:06] Similarly I have documented the process for the Security team as well and linked to it from the TB page on the wiki [19:06] #undo [19:06] Removing item from minutes: ACTION [19:06] I think we need to do the same for the Release team. I have a general draft of Release membership onboarding that I could extend to that, but we still need to define all of it from the Release team [19:06] The onboarding document for now is internal for internal onboarding processes, but there's actually no reason for it to not become public [19:06] I need to do the same for the archive admins [19:07] ok lets keep the Release Team and AA teams on the action item them [19:07] Let me add it to the next release meeting agenda [19:07] Ok done, I'll discuss it with the team [19:07] #action seb128 to continue working with AA and Release teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations [19:07] ACTION: seb128 to continue working with AA and Release teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations [19:07] thanks [19:08] ACTION: sil2100 to follow up on the Cinnamon 24.04 LTS Qualification re the number of contacts listed for the flavor [19:08] nice to see some change on that item, it has been carried over for ever :) [19:08] I have a question regarding that one [19:08] So when I started drafting an e-mail, I actually wanted to find some context of this one, but I guess I didn't search well enough [19:09] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCinnamon/24.04/LTS-Proposal [19:09] Is the problem we're trying to ask about that there's too many contacts listed? [19:09] Because originally I thought the problem was that there were not enough [19:10] What is the original ask here, apologies for asking [19:10] hmm I am not sure either - am trying to see if I can find anything but so far am coming up blank [19:12] https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2024/04/09/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t19:12 [19:12] it's coming from here [19:12] To be fair, the Cinnamon situation is a bit weird. Basically during Beta we had trouble getting in touch with the main flavor lead, but indeed the rest of listed people were able to act on the flavor [19:13] Okay, so it is the fact of 'too many contacts'. The list doesn't include 10 people though, just 4 through name [19:13] And I think mentioning 'members of ubuntucinnamon-dev' is a natural thing to say? [19:14] But okay, let's carry over my item. What I'll do is send a message to Cinnamon asking them about current contact information [19:14] And making sure that all the contacts that are listed can action on the actual flavor [19:14] thanks sil2100 [19:14] And can be made accountable [19:14] Thank you for the context o/ [19:14] it seems reasonable to me as well, I'm unsure to understand the original concern, maybe just dropping the reference to the team would be enough? [19:15] thanks! [19:15] #action sil2100 to follow up on the Cinnamon 24.04 LTS Qualification to ensure the listed contacts can action the flavor [19:15] ACTION: sil2100 to follow up on the Cinnamon 24.04 LTS Qualification to ensure the listed contacts can action the flavor [19:15] ACTION: rbasak to document the third party software sources policy somewhere appropriate [19:16] o/ [19:16] I created https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-governance-docs [19:16] Getting some help from a technical author within Canonical for the infrastructure pieces [19:16] But this is still in progress [19:16] Please carry over [19:16] \o/ [19:16] nice - thanks rbasak [19:17] #action rbasak to document the third party software sources policy somewhere appropriate [19:17] ACTION: rbasak to document the third party software sources policy somewhere appropriate [19:17] #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item) [19:17] #link https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2024-September/thread.html [19:17] nothing there [19:17] #topic Check up on community bugs and techboard bugs [19:17] #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bugs?field.assignee=techboard [19:18] #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/techboard [19:18] LP: #2015920 can probably be closed out soon rbasak [19:18] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 2015920 in techboard "Third party repository policy is not well defined" [Undecided, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2015920 [19:19] Agreed. I was going to get it documented first so was just waiting on that so I could post a link in the bug on closing it. [19:19] sounds good [19:19] #topic Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members) [19:20] looks like rbasak and seb128 [19:20] #agreed next meeting chair: rbasak, backup: seb128 [19:20] AGREED: next meeting chair: rbasak, backup: seb128 [19:20] ack [19:20] #topic AOB [19:20] Nothing from me [19:21] not from me [19:21] nor from me [19:21] looks like we are done then - thanks folks [19:21] #endmeeting [19:21] Meeting ended at 19:21:56 UTC. Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2024/ubuntu-meeting.2024-09-24-19.02.moin.txt [19:21] Thank you o/ [19:22] thanks! [19:22] Thanks! === nicoz_ is now known as nicoz