15:30 <cpaelzer> #startmeeting Weekly Main Inclusion Requests status 15:30 <meetingology> Meeting started at 15:30:29 UTC. The chair is cpaelzer. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology 15:30 <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick 15:30 <cpaelzer> slyon: didrocks: jamespage: sarnold: (doko ddstreet) - MIR Team meeting 15:30 <didrocks> hey 15:31 <sarnold> good morning 15:31 <cpaelzer> #topic Review of previous action items 15:31 <cpaelzer> I had one to inform ubuntu-devel about the new MIR templates 15:31 <cpaelzer> that is done 15:31 <sarnold> \o/ 15:31 <cpaelzer> AFAICS there was no negative feedback 15:31 <cpaelzer> #topic current component mismatches 15:31 <cpaelzer> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg 15:31 <cpaelzer> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg 15:32 <cpaelzer> libsdl2 -> libdecode-0 -> Server 15:32 <cpaelzer> haproxy -> opentracing-c-wrapper / opentracing-cpp -> Server as well 15:32 <cpaelzer> *sigh* - I'll have someone look after those 15:32 <cpaelzer> the regular gifts of auto-syncing :-) 15:32 <didrocks> sounds "fun" 15:32 <cpaelzer> python-cliff -> pathon-autopage - that was jamespage last week, still no bug - any reasons? 15:32 <cpaelzer> rather python-autopage 15:32 <jamespage> should be 15:32 <cpaelzer> if there is a bug it misses something to be detected as MIR bug 15:32 <jamespage> I think icey completed the bug for me but I've been off work until today - I'll dobule check 15:33 <cpaelzer> ok 15:33 <cpaelzer> cache -> hiredis -> Foundations ? 15:33 <cpaelzer> slyon: another one for you to distribute the hadnling in the team? 15:33 <jamespage> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-autopage/+bug/1951129) 15:33 <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1951129 in python-autopage (Ubuntu) "[MIR] python-autopage" [Undecided, New] 15:33 <jamespage> missed sub 15:33 <slyon> cpaelzer: yeah.. there is currently some discussion about demoting ccache inside foundations 15:33 <sarnold> the other day mwhudson asked why ccache is in main in the first place.. it's something from the mists (or midsts?) of time.. 15:34 <cpaelzer> as long as it is handled it is fine, thanks slyon 15:34 <cpaelzer> thanks jamespage - let us stare at it why it wasn't detected as such 15:34 <cpaelzer> oh it is still assigned to you 15:34 <cpaelzer> jamespage: if this is ready for review let us know 15:34 <cpaelzer> we then have to look for a reviewer here 15:35 <jamespage> I'll pick it up if that's OK 15:35 <cpaelzer> ok for me 15:35 <cpaelzer> assigned 15:35 <cpaelzer> #topic New MIRs 15:35 <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 15:36 <cpaelzer> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/raqm/+bug/1951069 is ready for review now 15:36 <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1951069 in raqm (Ubuntu) "[MIR] raqm" [Undecided, New] 15:36 <cpaelzer> that was one of those slyon took to the foundations team 15:36 <cpaelzer> looking at who got how much today so far, maybe didrocks you could take a look at reviewing that one? 15:36 <didrocks> sure, will do 15:36 <cpaelzer> thanks 15:36 <slyon> thanks! 15:37 <cpaelzer> #topic Incomplete bugs / questions 15:37 <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 15:37 <cpaelzer> nothing of this week in there 15:37 <cpaelzer> #topic Any other business? 15:37 <cpaelzer> I know of two topics 15:37 <slyon> ahh wait 15:37 <cpaelzer> onw is wireguard 15:37 <cpaelzer> one 15:37 <cpaelzer> and one is the next step for the rust rules 15:37 <slyon> There is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wireguard/+bug/1950317 15:37 <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1950317 in wireguard (Ubuntu) "[MIR] Wireguard" [Undecided, New] 15:37 <cpaelzer> ok, that is one of those I listed 15:38 <slyon> ack. I'd like to get a 2nd opinion from you folks, about duplication of wireguard-tools vs netplan.io+systemd-networkd 15:38 <cpaelzer> slyon: wanted to reject it for duplication, but there was plenty of feedback to say no we need this 15:38 <cpaelzer> I'm biased as the requesting team, but if I'd count I'd say yes we should probably have it 15:38 <cpaelzer> after all we also have openvpn + strongswan 15:39 * didrocks opens the bug, but unsure I know enough of the difference in real/advanced use 15:39 <cpaelzer> there also is an important use case which we are checking right now if that could work with "just netplan" or of the wg tool is needed for that 15:39 <cpaelzer> since slyon and I are part of the current discussion we are looking for opinions on this by didrocks jamespage and sarnold 15:40 <slyon> I've also had a heated discussion with WG upstream about this today. and he was pushing very hard for it to be included in main.. 15:40 <didrocks> would formulating something on the bug itself for next week would be quick enough? 15:40 <cpaelzer> slyon: in a reasonable way (with the heat aside, were there good arguments as well) ? 15:41 <slyon> yes the primary argument on the pro side is about wireguard key generation 15:41 <cpaelzer> didrocks: I think giving it some time is ok if you need to read into it 15:41 <sarnold> on my focal system I see 'wg' is packaged in wireguard-tools, and dman wg shows 'The wg utility provides a series of sub-commands for changing WireGuard-specific aspects of WireGuard interfaces.' and the subcommands show a bunch of stuff for generating and adding keys 15:41 <slyon> the "wg" tools can generated the required tools, whereas netplan+networkd cannot 15:41 <cpaelzer> we will also deliver that info from the further use case 15:41 <sarnold> re heated discussion, I think it's impossible to have any other sort with the upstream.. 15:41 <didrocks> I only know about the WG UI part, so no opinion on the -tool for now 15:41 <cpaelzer> slyon: would you summarize the outcome of that upstream discussion leading to a +1 from their side as well 15:42 <cpaelzer> we didn't plan to do any UI work, just the toolsets 15:42 <slyon> well it was less a discussion and more of upstream accusing Ubuntu of only supporting netplan because of NIH 15:42 <sarnold> there we go 15:42 <cpaelzer> taking the heat and NIH accusation out of it there is the argument of key generation 15:42 <cpaelzer> which you have already mentioned IIRC 15:42 <slyon> exactly 15:43 <slyon> and with the comments made on the LP bug, I'm leaning towards doing the full MIR review and trying to get it accepted for that reason 15:43 <sarnold> my inclination is to include wireguard-tools in the MIR 15:44 <cpaelzer> sarnold: that is from the same source, you mean to ensure they are promoted as well?= 15:44 <cpaelzer> slyon: I'm leaning towards "+1 and full review" as well by now 15:44 <sarnold> cpaelzer: yeah.. sigh it's a bit early here :) 15:44 <cpaelzer> np 15:44 <cpaelzer> slyon: maybe give everyone a day to read&comment - and if there are no tremendous changes do a full review then? 15:44 <slyon> sounds good! 15:45 <cpaelzer> ok 15:45 <cpaelzer> -- context switch -- 15:45 <cpaelzer> the rust rules 15:45 <cpaelzer> Our discussion kind of settled in https://github.com/cpaelzer/ubuntu-mir/pull/3 15:45 <ubottu> Pull 3 in cpaelzer/ubuntu-mir "Add rust rules" [Open] 15:45 <cpaelzer> Next I'd present that that to a few key people and Team managers, just to ensure everyone had a saying in this 15:46 <cpaelzer> is that ok to all of you or does someone say "wait I had no chance to review it yet" 15:46 <cpaelzer> or "... is still totally missing here 15:46 <slyon> that's a good approach, IMO! I already pulled in schopin, but tried not to publish this PR too much outside of MIR otherwise 15:47 <didrocks> yeah, I have made my comments on it, but didn’t rereview it 15:47 <didrocks> will do it this week (hard because we are in sprinting in Paris, but I will try as much as possible) 15:47 <cpaelzer> I'll try to CC you all on that mail that I'm sending 15:47 <cpaelzer> that concludes all open items I had 15:47 <cpaelzer> anything else from you? 15:48 <didrocks> nothing for me 15:48 <slyon> nothing here 15:48 <sarnold> mmm I remember a few good restaurants in paris.. 15:48 <didrocks> :) 15:49 <sarnold> we covered a lot more ground inthat pull than I remembered. good job us. :) 15:49 <sarnold> nothing from me 15:49 <cpaelzer> ok, closing then - thank you all! 15:49 <didrocks> Thanks! 15:49 <sarnold> thanks cpaelzer, all :) 15:49 <slyon> thanks! o/ 15:49 <cpaelzer> #endmeeting