== Meeting information == * #ubuntu-meeting: Weekly Main Inclusion Requests status meeting, started by slyon, 24 Sep at 14:31 — 15:05 UTC. * Full logs at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2024/ubuntu-meeting.2024-09-24-14.31.log.html == Meeting summary == === current component mismatches === Discussion started by slyon at 14:31. * ''LINK:'' https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg (slyon, 14:31) * ''LINK:'' https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg (slyon, 14:31) === New MIRs === Discussion started by slyon at 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 (slyon, 14:32) === Incomplete bugs / questions === Discussion started by slyon at 14:32. * ''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 (slyon, 14:33) === Process/Documentation improvements === Discussion started by slyon at 14:41. * ''LINK:'' https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pulls (slyon, 14:41) * ''LINK:'' https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues (slyon, 14:41) * ''LINK:'' 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 (jbicha, 14:55) === MIR related Security Review Queue === Discussion started by slyon at 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 (slyon, 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 (slyon, 14:59) * ''LINK:'' https://warthogs.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/SEC/boards/594 (slyon, 14:59) * ''LINK:'' https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues/67 (slyon, 15:02) === Any other business? === Discussion started by slyon at 15:03. == People present (lines said) == * slyon (61) * cpaelzer (34) * didrocks (9) * sarnold (8) * meetingology (2) * jamespage (2) * jbicha (2) == Full log == 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 but waiting for some -dev packages exclusion discussion (more on that later) 14:34 (no security review needed) 14:34 bug #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 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 #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 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 14:44 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 I had some discussions about this with seb128 today, after the architecture-properties MIR in https://launchpad.net/bugs/2080965 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 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 14:56 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 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 Generated by MeetBot 0.4.0 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)