New Ubuntu Core Developer - William Wilson
Hello, We are pleased to announce that at today's DMB meeting jawn-smith has been accepted into the Ubuntu Core Developer family! Yay! Another great addition to the team! Happy hacking! Best regards, -- Ćukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak Foundations Team lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com www.canonical.com -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Proposal: revert recent debianutils changes for Jammy
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:59:19PM +, Dimitri Ledkov wrote: > I have been playing whack-a-mole trying to fix usage of those two > commands in all the places. It will be a painful and long process, not > only because we need to merge changes from Debian, but because we have > Ubuntu-specific deltas that use those commands all over the place as > well. > > I agree that it is unnecessary transition to be done for Jammy. We can > choose to schedule this transition after Debian in a post Jammy > release. > > It is in no way an expression of opinion about this transition, purely > a choice to coordinate timing of it with our release schedules. > > +1 from me please go ahead, I was contemplating to propose the same myself. The Ubuntu Release team is also in favor of reverting the recent debianutils changes. Thanks for working on this! Cheers, Brian > -- > Regards, > > Dimitri. > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:53 PM Robie Basak wrote: > > > > You may be aware of a couple of recent changes in debianutils in Debian: > > > > 1. The "tempfile" command has been removed. > > > > 2. The "which" command now prints a deprecation warning on every > > invocation. > > > > These have ramifications across the archive, and also outside the > > archive, as everything that relies on these commands need adjusting. > > > > This kind of big change is being done in the right place in Debian's > > release cycle - shortly after a release. But for Ubuntu, it's the > > opposite - we're a few months away from an LTS release. > > > > Risk 1: before everything is settled, we release an LTS that is > > unpolished with regards to these changes. > > > > Risk 2: the changes may prove unpopular with users. Given that these are > > deprecations coming from Debian, it seems odd for Ubuntu users to face > > this ahead of Debian and without appearing in our interim releases > > first. Debian may end up applying mitigations for specific affected user > > stories but we would be stuck with the behaviour defined at our LTS > > release time. > > > > Proposal: we revert these two changes in an Ubuntu delta on the > > debianutils package, and reconsider syncing back with Debian _after_ > > Jammy is released. > > > > Then Debian can lead the way, and we won't get additional work ensuring > > that there are no user-facing warts ahead of Debian's schedule. > > > > Any objections to an upload to debianutils in Ubuntu reverting these two > > changes? > > > > Robie > > -- > > ubuntu-devel mailing list > > ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel > > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- Brian Murray -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Add ubuntu-advantage-tools to Recommends on ubuntu-minimal
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 4:51 AM Lucas Moura wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Recently, we have received a request about moving ubuntu-advantage-tools from > Depends to Recommends on ubuntu-minimal and update-manager as can be seen > here: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/1950692 > > The problem today of ubuntu-advantage-tools sitting on Depends is that > removing this package will also trigger the removal of several core Ubuntu > packages on the system as well. This isn't the *only* problem, as on do-release-upgrade all those packages will be silently re-installed, e.g.: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/netplan.io/+bug/1845234 I'd support the change to Recommends for ubuntu-advantage-tools, and also netplan.io. > > We want to ask for opinions of this change to other Ubuntu developers, to see > if we are not missing any other aspect around the original decision to > include the package into Depends. > > Best regards, > Lucas Moura > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
+1 Maintenance report
Hello, last week I was on +1 Duty, well I was supposed to :-/ Sadly many things tried to keep me away from it. After checking with Mclemenceau for that to be "ok", I still tried to get as much done as I could fit in between. This might only be worth maybe ~1.25day overall, but at least I was able to tackle a few things. ## Segyio [1] Vorlon left this bug from last weeks +1, but while starting to look at it I found Ginggs already had tackled that. I helped to ensure upstream is aware (for bonus confusion it is an embedded source in sigyio from catch2) and the bug status [1] is up to date to reflect all that. ## parlatype [2] FTBFS due to whitespace damage, reported to Debian [3] and filed as LP update-excuse bug [2]. Uploaded a fix to get it resolved for now and expecting it will become a sync later on. This fix migrated in Ubuntu with the fix and got merged into Debian. On the weekend the fix was uploaded to Debian including that and I synced the package again. ## nbd [4] I realized too late how young the age of the last upload was and had created and submitted two fixes already. This is pretty much WIP in Debian and uploaded to unstable every time. We can wait until it resolves there, and LP but tracking and explaining that was filed. As expected over the next few days it was resolved. Never look at too young uploads I guess. ## ldc [5] This was an FTBFS for almost two weeks and the reason is that the LDC project did not yet convert from the ORCv1 to the ORCv2 API for the jit compiler. Thereby it can't build with llvm >=12 which is our default. Build this against llvm-11 until upstream has resolved that (known issue for them). For Ubuntu I uploaded a fix to build with llvm-11 for not, but to really resolve this mid term I filed a bug with Debian outlining the backgrounds (considered experimental and to be dropped by upstream) and proposed a PR there to do so. Builds look good now, but it still hangs in the new queue of jammy. ## emscripten I looked into the TFBFS of this but it seemed flaky and failing for different reasons every time. Sometimes taking 10h to do so made it hard to debug and then I found that Debian still uploads more versions to fix similar (but not the same) test issues on their side. I think we need to let Debian settle this and once concluded there but still failing for us have another look. ## glew [7] I've found that glew is listed as blocking dependency 45 times. As usual the chain is long, there are: - vtk7 also wait on gdal, but that is only listed as it was recnetly build and waits to be published - vtk7 which has a test issue on armhf - rss-glx which FTBFS I've found rss-glx to be fixed in Debian [6] filed a LP tracker about it [7] rebased and uploaded a merge of that new version to resolve this issue. This worked fine and is at least one less to block glew. ## pg/post* [8] I have found that some universe packages around the wider postgres context have issues and thought I might be able to help those to get out of the way of other transitions which implicitly depend on them e.g. proj, pdal, pgrouting and indirectly even openssl. I did some debugging on a ppc64 host, but no matter which combination the issue was not reproducible there. So I eventually filed [8] to document the summary so far and brought it to the attention of the postgresql packagers if they recognize anything. [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/segyio/+bug/1951658 [2]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/debian/+source/parlatype/+bug/1951833 [3]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000388 [4]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nbd/+bug/1951839 [5]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ldc/+bug/1951845 [6]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=984322 [7]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/debian/+source/rss-glx/+bug/1951968 [8]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/postgis/+bug/1952604 P.S. as usual I'm not listing the many small cases of retriggering with or without changed package sets. -- Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel