== Meeting information == * #ubuntu-meeting: Ubuntu Backports Team meeting, started by ddstreet, 06 Apr at 16:33 — 17:27 UTC. * Full logs at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2022/ubuntu-meeting.2022-04-06-16.33.log.html == Meeting summary == === Previous Action Items === Discussion started by ddstreet at 16:34. * '''ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over)''' (ddstreet, 16:34) * ''ACTION:'' ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over) (ddstreet, 16:34) * '''ddstreet update draft charter to point to team policies at single wiki page, create draft wiki page for team policies''' (ddstreet, 16:34) * '''ddstreet send ML email after updating charter''' (ddstreet, 16:34) * '''mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress)''' (ddstreet, 16:34) * ''ACTION:'' mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress) (ddstreet, 16:35) * '''mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over)''' (ddstreet, 16:35) * ''ACTION:'' mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over) (ddstreet, 16:35) * '''(unassigned) review delegation email on ML''' (ddstreet, 16:35) * '''(unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over)''' (ddstreet, 16:36) * ''ACTION:'' (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over) (ddstreet, 16:36) * '''(unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over)''' (ddstreet, 16:36) * ''ACTION:'' (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over) (ddstreet, 16:36) === Open Mailing List Threads === Discussion started by ddstreet at 16:37. * '''clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions''' (ddstreet, 16:37) * clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions (ddstreet, 16:39) * '''Ratifying a formal delegation''' (ddstreet, 16:40) * '''suggestion to drop request for TB ratification and use simple team approval''' (ddstreet, 16:41) * ''LINK:'' https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2022-March/002620.html (ddstreet, 16:50) * ''LINK:'' https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter?action=recall&rev=5 (ddstreet, 16:51) * https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2022-March/002620.html (ddstreet, 16:51) === open bugs === Discussion started by ddstreet at 16:52. * '''update backportpackage and requestbackport scripts to behave according to new backport process''' (ddstreet, 16:52) * ''ACTION:'' mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor (ddstreet, 17:02) * ''VOTE:'' accept memtest86+ backport (Carried) (ddstreet, 17:07) * ''VOTE:'' accept freeipmi backport (Carried) (ddstreet, 17:09) * ''ACTION:'' mapreri handle approval for backports of memtest86+ and freeipmi (ddstreet, 17:10) * ''LINK:'' https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debhelper/+bug/1965800 (ddstreet, 17:11) * ''LINK:'' https://launchpad.net/~ddstreet/+archive/ubuntu/backport (ddstreet, 17:14) * ''LINK:'' https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debhelper/+bug/1965800/comments/2 (ddstreet, 17:19) * ''VOTE:'' adjust debhelper focal-backport to remove dep on debugedit (Carried) (ddstreet, 17:22) * ''ACTION:'' mapreri handle debhelper backport including revert dep on debugedit for focal-backports (ddstreet, 17:25) === AOB === Discussion started by ddstreet at 17:25. * ''ACTION:'' ddstreet schedule next mtg for 1 month (ddstreet, 17:26) == Vote results == * [[https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2022/ubuntu-meeting.2022-04-06-16.33.log.html#176|accept memtest86+ backport]] * Motion carried (For: 2, Against: 0, Abstained: 0) * Voters: mapreri, ddstreet * [[https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2022/ubuntu-meeting.2022-04-06-16.33.log.html#193|accept freeipmi backport]] * Motion carried (For: 2, Against: 0, Abstained: 0) * Voters: mapreri, ddstreet * [[https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2022/ubuntu-meeting.2022-04-06-16.33.log.html#250|adjust debhelper focal-backport to remove dep on debugedit]] * Motion carried (For: 2, Against: 0, Abstained: 0) * Voters: ddstreet, mapreri == Action items, by person == * ddstreet * ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over) * ddstreet schedule next mtg for 1 month * mapreri * mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress) * mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over) * mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor * mapreri handle approval for backports of memtest86+ and freeipmi * mapreri handle debhelper backport including revert dep on debugedit for focal-backports * **UNASSIGNED** * (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over) * (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over) == People present (lines said) == * ddstreet (152) * mapreri (97) * meetingology (36) * ubottu (4) * rbasak (3) == Full log == 16:33 #startmeeting Ubuntu Backports Team 16:33 Meeting started at 16:33:09 UTC. The chair is ddstreet. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology 16:33 Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick 16:34 i'll run thru the previous action items first, assuming the ones marked done are done and just carrying over the rest, please stop me if there's anything we should discuss for them 16:34 #topic Previous Action Items 16:34 #subtopic ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over) 16:34 #action ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over) 16:34 * meetingology ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over) 16:34 #subtopic ddstreet update draft charter to point to team policies at single wiki page, create draft wiki page for team policies 16:34 done 16:34 #subtopic ddstreet send ML email after updating charter 16:34 done 16:34 #subtopic mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress) 16:35 carrying over, i assume 16:35 ya 16:35 #action mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress) 16:35 * meetingology mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress) 16:35 #subtopic mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over) 16:35 Debian bug 1001399 in lintian "lintian: adjust backports-upload-has-incorrect-version-number for ubuntu" [Normal, Open] 16:35 #action mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over) 16:35 * meetingology mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over) 16:35 same 16:35 #subtopic (unassigned) review delegation email on ML 16:35 done? 16:35 no, but let's drop the action, since it's listed in the ML topics also 16:36 #subtopic (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over) 16:36 #action (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over) 16:36 * meetingology (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over) 16:36 #subtopic (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over) 16:36 #action (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over) 16:36 * meetingology (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over) 16:36 ok that's the previous actions, hopefully after some of the more administrative tasks are behind us we'll have more time to address them 16:37 #topic Open Mailing List Threads 16:37 #subtopic clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions 16:37 I feel sorry for the whole #topic :S 16:37 as do i :( 16:38 i think we'll get to this one as well, but we should leave it in the list so we don't lose it 16:38 yes 16:38 hmm im not sure how to mark something other than 'action' with meetingology...i guess i'll just use 'action' and edit the agenda properly later 16:38 #action clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions 16:38 * meetingology clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions 16:38 there is #info I think? 16:39 ah ok lemme try that 16:39 #info clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions 16:39 or #idea or #agreed 16:39 however you should have likely #undo that one before? :P 16:39 #undo 16:39 Removing item from minutes: INFO 16:39 #undo 16:39 Removing item from minutes: ACTION 16:39 i'm not sure how info will appear in the minutes, but let's try it this time 16:39 #info clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions 16:40 don't you love experimenting with bots? :P 16:40 lol 16:40 now i'm excited to see the results after the mtg :) 16:40 anyway, I haven't misplaced the mails in my system, they are just piled up 16:40 as usual 16:40 #subtopic Ratifying a formal delegation 16:40 i think this one is superseded by the charter, so i think we can drop this one? 16:40 they are both a whole pageful away from the current line 16:41 yes 16:41 lol indeed my email inbox is pretty crazy 16:41 #subtopic suggestion to drop request for TB ratification and use simple team approval 16:41 I don't quite agree here 16:41 so, i sent this yesterday, not sure if you had a chance to read it 16:41 ok 16:41 I did 16:42 I'd like to find a better middle-ground between what the TB (→ rbasak, basically? I don't think anybody else answered iirc) would like to see, and what we'd like 16:42 I think his comments were basically saying that too much was in the charter? 16:42 yeah, i dont think anyone else on the TB even read the charter until (maybe) yesterday 16:43 what's with yesterday? 16:43 there was a TB meeting yesterday 16:43 they did not review or discuss the charter though unfortunately 16:43 i did put it on the TB agenda right after their mtg 2 weeks ago (or maybe before) 16:44 I'd find surprising if anybody ever look at a meeting agenda before a meeting 16:44 I sure don't :( 16:44 * rbasak is here but has no comment at the moment 16:44 i think the main thing for me is, i feel we (i.e. our team) has done the work to create the charter/rules/policies we want to use for running our team; i think we would all like for the TB to ratify it, but what I don't want to do is engage with the TB in any long discussions about various changes to the charter 16:45 But I'm happy to clarify anything if you'd like 16:45 i think our team should assume the charter is good, and move on with that assumption; the TB is totally able to review and ratify it at their own pace 16:45 If you think I'm proposing to change your charter, then you misunderstand 16:45 ddstreet: I don't think it's fair for you to expect somebody to ratify something but at the same time not giving them the right to express opinions on it 16:46 no that's not what i mean 16:46 expressing opinions is fine 16:46 but what i'd expect from the TB is specific requests for changes 16:46 as a whole, i.e. en banc 16:46 ok, I think I see your point 16:46 like, i'd expect the TB to have whatever discussion about our charter that they want 16:47 and then, come back to us saying 'we would liek you to cahnge XYZ...' 16:47 mind if I take some time to re-read the TB thread again, to better understand rbasak's views (I didn't really pay attention when I read before), and see if I can help move it forward somehow. 16:47 anyway, it's not like this is blocking our daily work 16:47 sure exactly 16:48 but please don't just drop it all 16:48 i do think it's important to *have* a charter our team agrees on, *preferably* that is ratified by our governing body, but our team should not get bogged down with lengthy discussions over the specific details of the charter 16:49 we've basically done that and we should move on with trying to fulfill our mission statement 16:49 agree, and I think we are on that route. We are hardly "bogged" when you can count the total emails over a month with your hands :) 16:49 ok so i'll drop this (i'll follow up to the ML too) 16:49 mh 16:50 well i'm trying to insulate everone else on our team from the administrivia of getting this charter finalized/ratified :) 16:50 can you add (or I'll later) a link to the TB thread instead? 16:50 sure let me add it here 16:50 #link https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2022-March/002620.html 16:50 (I meant in the running agenda) 16:51 and for reference, this is the charter version submitted to the TB 16:51 #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter?action=recall&rev=5 16:51 ah right i'll add it there as well 16:51 #info https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2022-March/002620.html 16:52 let's continue? 16:52 and also FYI, i did some rewording of the charter but i'll revert that back to the original version (as linked above, rev=5) 16:52 yep 16:52 ok that's all the ML threads 16:52 #topic open bugs 16:52 #subtopic update backportpackage and requestbackport scripts to behave according to new backport process 16:52 think this will get attention in the future as well 16:52 that's also in the actions… carried-over 16:53 yep, i'll remove from the open bugs list 16:53 meta-question, do you think we need a open bugs review section? 16:53 maybe not 16:53 we do, but I don't think we need to manually list all open bugs in the wiki… 16:53 like, I do have bugs I'd like to discuss/mention during a meeting, but I doubt we need all of them there 16:54 sounds good, let's just leave the section then and i won't add specific bugs 16:54 or one can add in advance the bugs he'd like to discuss, for example 16:54 but I doubt mass-copying them is useful use of your time :) 16:54 yep that sounds good 16:55 yeah it isn't, i was thinking that while i did it today :) 16:55 any you want to bring up? i think the only one for me is the debhelper i386 bug 16:55 on that note 16:55 yep 16:55 2 things 16:56 1) I just turned down (marked as "incomplete") 2 bugs (primecount and obfs4proxy) that were basically just plain requests for backports, rather than tracking bugs for things already uploaded/in the process of uploads. also the submitter had new lp accounts, so I guess they are not active contributors either. 16:57 should we highlight on the wiki more that we don't take those kind of requests? 16:57 probably so, though i'm not sure what the best guidance is for people who don't know how to get a sponsor 16:58 for those, it's "subscribe ~ubuntu-sponsors` 16:58 but that's not the case here, I think those are just power-users or somesuch 16:58 they didn't provide diffs, test cases, links to ppa, etc. 16:58 i think it's a problem for SRUs as well, hence the ubuntu-sponsors backlog https://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/ 16:58 well, ~ubuntu-sponsors being backlogged is a separate matter 16:59 definitely 16:59 that page is not looking too bad tbh 16:59 but the pool of people who can provide sponsorship is basically the same 16:59 for srus or bpos 16:59 a few years ago when I was actively sponsoring things in ubuntu it was routinely much worse 16:59 a bit more red than i'd like, but yeah it's definitely smaller than it used to be 17:00 i guess the question of 'how to get a sponsor' isn't really something we can answer though 17:00 but that's not the problem 17:00 and i am +1 on highlighting that just opening a bug isn't enough, they need to do the work and get a sponsor 17:00 it's that those requests were not even from people who likely would even do the work *shrugs* 17:00 yep 17:01 I'll try to re-read our welcoming page, see if I can imagine how to highlight this detail. but if you have ideas do go ahead :) 17:01 do you want to edit the wiki to add that? i'm sure i will be fine with whatever wording you add 17:01 sounds good, should i add an action just to track it? 17:01 pls 17:01 you want to take it? 17:01 sure why not 17:01 thanks :) 17:02 #action mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor 17:02 * meetingology mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor 17:02 ok was there another thing before the debhelper bug? 17:02 2) about memtest86+ and feeipmi. we should really decide what to do here. honestly, I'd feel quite bad at rejecting them. they do provide quite some value over the status quo, even if focal itself would stay buggier. 17:03 and it's not like rejecting them would convince the maintainer to produce patches 17:03 i agree, the new maintainer was pretty clear they weren't going to bother trying to patch the focal version 17:03 because of too many changes 17:03 which is fair 17:04 yep i was going to say the same thing 17:04 both packages were undermaintained/unmaintained before him, so they have a huge amount of changes in-between 17:04 i think we both are leaning towards approving the backports, but do you think we should try to have some kind of official policy before doing it? 17:04 or we could just decide it's a case-by-case basis 17:05 it's definitely a case-by-case basis 17:05 besides 17:05 we could just be tricked into them if the proposer would have listed a few new features "forgetting" to mention the fixed bugs... 17:06 lol that's certainly true 17:06 so +1 in accepting both of them? 17:06 since you like playing with the both, do you want to set up a vote? :P 17:06 bot * 17:06 lol sure let's do it :) 17:07 #vote accept memtest86+ backport 17:07 Please vote on: accept memtest86+ backport 17:07 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, -1 or +0 in channel (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1|-1|+0 #channelname') 17:07 +1 17:07 +1 received from mapreri 17:07 +1 17:07 +1 received from ddstreet 17:07 hurray! :) 17:07 #endvote 17:07 Voting ended on: accept memtest86+ backport 17:07 Votes for: 2, Votes against: 0, Abstentions: 0 17:07 Motion carried 17:07 oh so fancy 17:08 freeipmi included, I guess? 17:08 i'd looked at it even before the backport was opened, it definitely needed updating, i was unable to get it working even in a VM 17:08 yep 17:08 I'll follow up on the bugs myself 17:08 #vote accept freeipmi backport 17:08 Please vote on: accept freeipmi backport 17:08 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, -1 or +0 in channel (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1|-1|+0 #channelname') 17:08 +1 17:08 +1 received from mapreri 17:09 +1 i don't have as much previous experience with this, but agree to the backport 17:09 +1 i don't have as much previous experience with this, but agree to the backport received from ddstreet 17:09 #endvote 17:09 Voting ended on: accept freeipmi backport 17:09 Votes for: 2, Votes against: 0, Abstentions: 0 17:09 Motion carried 17:10 well voting is fun :) 17:10 heh 17:10 ok you'll handle approving those? 17:10 I think you can use #voters in advance, iirc that also automatically closes the vote once everybody's done 17:10 yep, I'll take them 17:10 ah ok cool, i did not know that 17:10 #action mapreri handle approval for backports of memtest86+ and freeipmi 17:10 * meetingology mapreri handle approval for backports of memtest86+ and freeipmi 17:11 ok want to talk about debhelper for focal-i386? 17:11 that uh 17:11 well 17:11 for reference 17:11 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debhelper/+bug/1965800 17:11 Launchpad bug 1965800 in debugedit (Ubuntu) "debhelper in focal-backports not usable for i386 package building (missing dependency)" [Undecided, New] 17:11 i guess, do we care about i386, is the first question? 17:12 well, I blame whoever decided it was a good idea to keep the arch half-alive. (to start :P) 17:12 lol indeed 17:12 I don't think it's a problem to backport debugedit, as it would just use (or we can make it use) focal's debhelper to build, not pulling the non-installable debhelper. 17:13 i personally dont care about i386 but i also think since it is 'half-alive' as you said, we shouldn't ignore it 17:13 hmm are you sure? 17:13 what I think might be a problem, is that I'm not sure if just doing it would trigger the i386 build, or whetever it would need an extra entry in the focal/i386-whitelist set 17:14 https://launchpad.net/~ddstreet/+archive/ubuntu/backport 17:14 mh 17:14 does the bpo archive have the same priority as the main archive in launchpad buildds? 17:14 that's unexpected 17:15 i think the problem is that the apt resolution doesn't do 'fallback' to older version(s) if the 'latest' (i.e. 'current') version isn't installable due to missing deps 17:15 but that's only if the bpo archive has the same priority, which really shouldn't be 17:16 since NotAutomatic+ButAutomaticUpgrades afaik makes apt consider that repo with a lower enough priority that it won't pull things from it automatically 17:16 so I wonder if launchpad is configured specially there 17:16 yeah, that i dont know 17:17 i guess we could either ask an archive admin in -devel channel, or we could just try backporting debugedit and see if it fails? 17:17 even then, that's workaroundable by "bootstrapping" it with a relaxed debhelper, then debugedit, then debhelper re-enabling that thing again 17:18 I think we could try uploading debugedit and see what happens. I'm mostly afraid of the i386-whitelist myself, than this. 17:18 so i guess separate from the bit about how specifically to backport debugedit, what do you think about either backporting it or removing its dep from the backported debhelper? 17:18 probably we should just backport it? 17:19 in the bug you mentioned you were for option 1 (remove the need for it from backported debhelper) 17:19 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debhelper/+bug/1965800/comments/2 17:19 in generally, I am for option 1. 17:19 Launchpad bug 1965800 in debugedit (Ubuntu) "debhelper in focal-backports not usable for i386 package building (missing dependency)" [Undecided, New] 17:20 let's just do that than, it will remove the need for us to worry about how to backport debugedit 17:20 that case Matthias' mentions is very rare really, only about different packages building the same object in what are basically the same conditions... 17:20 it's, like.. very rare 17:20 I think I saw it a few times with a some plugin-like thing 17:20 want to do a vote on it? :) 17:20 #voters mapreri ddstreet 17:20 Current voters: ddstreet, mapreri 17:21 #vote adjust debhelper focal-backport to remove dep on debugedit 17:21 Please vote on: adjust debhelper focal-backport to remove dep on debugedit 17:21 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, -1 or +0 in channel (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1|-1|+0 #channelname') 17:21 (i think it's only needed in the focal-backport right?) 17:21 yes 17:21 +1 17:21 +1 received from ddstreet 17:21 +1 17:21 +1 received from mapreri 17:22 mh, so it's not closed after all? guess I misremember 17:22 come on meetingology i was promised you would automatically end the vote! ;-) 17:22 lol 17:22 #endvote 17:22 Voting ended on: adjust debhelper focal-backport to remove dep on debugedit 17:22 sooorrryyyy :( 17:22 Votes for: 2, Votes against: 0, Abstentions: 0 17:22 Motion carried 17:22 alright, I'll revert that change for focal only. 17:23 sounds good, and i assume you'll use the latest debhelper for the updated backport, so that will cover lp:#1965758 also? 17:23 Launchpad bug 1965758 in debhelper (Ubuntu Impish) "[BPO] debhelper/13.6ubuntu1 from jammy to bionic, focal, impish" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1965758 17:24 besides, I *think* (but I'm not sure) that debhelper in focal doesn't have that change of changing the build-id anyway. 17:24 so it's not like we'd be regressing thing "within" focal 17:24 and yes 17:24 ok i'll action it 17:25 #action mapreri handle debhelper backport including revert dep on debugedit for focal-backports 17:25 * meetingology mapreri handle debhelper backport including revert dep on debugedit for focal-backports 17:25 that's all the bugs, i think, unless you had any others to discuss 17:25 #topic AOB 17:25 nothing from me for AOB 17:25 and we're almost at the hour 17:26 so good timing i guess :) 17:26 anything else from you? 17:26 no, I'm good 17:26 awesome 17:26 we had what effectively was a non-rushed meeting, which was nice 17:26 yep, i think it was good :) 17:26 see you in 1 month again? 17:26 last topic, next meeting 17:26 yeah! :) 17:26 #action ddstreet schedule next mtg for 1 month 17:26 * meetingology ddstreet schedule next mtg for 1 month 17:27 great, thanks! 17:27 #endmeeting Generated by MeetBot 0.4.0 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)