Re: Can we collaborate with Debian better?
On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 09:53:06PM +0200, Frank Heimes wrote: > There is a little bit more on "removing packages" here: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/PackageArchive#Removing_Packages > So it's actually a 'must' to have a LP bug for getting a package removed. The word "must" does not appear in that text. It simply says that, if you are asking for a package to be removed from Ubuntu, the process to follow is to file a bug in Launchpad. However: On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 03:03:18PM -0700, Erich Eickmeyer wrote: > I recently learned this too, and that's not entirely accurate. Apparently > we treat Debian bugs as though they're our own, so if they're filed in > Debian's bug tracker, then they're fair game. So, if a removal bug is > filed in Debian, it applies to Ubuntu as well and doesn't require a > Launchpad bug. This is broadly correct. More precisely, if there is a release-critical bug (such as a report of FTBFS) filed against the package in Debian that has caused / will cause its removal, archive admins will often consider this adequate documentation of a removal reason. Because wanting bug reports filed for package removals is largely about having something to point to in the removal messages: "Removed from disk on 2024-04-18. Removal requested on 2024-04-17. Deleted on 2024-04-17 by Matthias Klose Debian #1069220, ftbfs, no rdeps" https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mrcal/+publishinghistory In this case, the bug pointed to is in fact one that Matthias himself filed, so he was documenting the build failure for the Debian maintainer prior to removing the package. mrbuild 1.10-1, which would have fixed this build failure, was published to Debian unstable on 2024-04-05. However, Debian Import Freeze happened on 2024-02-29, so well before, meaning this package was not pulled into Ubuntu; and mrcal COULD NOT be shipped in Ubuntu if it couldn't be built, because 2.4.1-1 was built for the wrong version of python, and 2.4.1-1build1 was built with the wrong version of xz-utils present in the host environment. So while python3.12 wasn't the cause of the build failure and this was a misdiagnosis (2.4.1-1build1 was a no-change rebuild *for* python 3.12 and it succeeded), on 2024-04-18 when Matthias removed the package we were 8 days out from release and doing everything necessary to get to the state of a Noble releasable on time without risk of compromise due to xz-utils-tainted binaries. So although you did reply right away with an explanation of how to fix the build failure, it's understandable that Matthias did not prioritize bringing this package back into the noble release pocket and syncing the new mrbuild necessary to get it to build in the week before release, when many other things were in flight. It is also understandable to me that Matthias did not prioritize communicating in the Debian bug that the issue he was reporting would result in the package's removal from the upcoming Ubuntu release. It would have been REASONABLE for Matthias to note this in the bug, but on the other hand I do not want to commit our archive admins to a policy that we MUST notify Debian maintainers before their packages are removed from Ubuntu. However, given the circumstances of the removal for xz-utils: > Related question: is there any way to get my packages included into some > sort of noble "updates", or something like that? As a member of the SRU team my answer is yes, I would consider this. It would require an actual SRU process for mrbuild, since that package has other reverse-build-dependencies in noble (libdogleg, mrgingham, vnlog) which should not be allowed to regress; but provided there is a proper SRU test case to assert this, I think it's a sensible path towards letting mrcal back in the archive for 24.04. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Can we collaborate with Debian better?
On Sunday, May 5, 2024 12:53:06 PM PDT Frank Heimes wrote: > There is a little bit more on "removing packages" here: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/PackageArchive#Removing_Packages > So it's actually a 'must' to have a LP bug for getting a package removed. > > BR, Frank Hi Frank, I recently learned this too, and that's not entirely accurate. Apparently we treat Debian bugs as though they're our own, so if they're filed in Debian's bug tracker, then they're fair game. So, if a removal bug is filed in Debian, it applies to Ubuntu as well and doesn't require a Launchpad bug. Cheers, Erich > On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 7:32 PM Simon Quigley wrote: > > Hi Dima, > > > > As a Debian Developer myself, I understand your concerns. Processes in > > this respect could be slightly better, but it also comes down to the > > differences between the two distributions. More detailed responses inline. > > > > On 5/2/24 10:56 AM, Dima Kogan wrote: > > > Hello. > > > > > > I'm a Debian developer, and contribute to Ubuntu only indirectly: by my > > > contributions to Debian being automatically pulled into Ubuntu. But > > > since Ubuntu has more users than Debian, most of MY users use the Ubuntu > > > packages. So I'd like to talk about improving the links between the two > > > > > projects. In particular: > > Ubuntu and Debian package maintenance responsibilities are slightly > > different; in Ubuntu, members of the Core Developers team are > > collectively responsible for the packages in the Main and Restricted > > components, and Masters of the Universe are collectively responsible for > > packages in the Universe and Multiverse. The ratio of "maintainers > > holding responsibility":"packages to be maintained" is much lower in > > Ubuntu than it is in Debian. > > > > Once a package has landed in the Ubuntu archive, Ubuntu Developers now > > collectively hold responsibility for that package. We ease much of this > > work by autosyncing packages without deltas to Ubuntu in the first half > > of each cycle; that being said, we sometimes drive major transitions in > > Ubuntu before Debian, to align with our release cycle. > > > > Many Ubuntu Developers (myself included) are trained to give as much > > back to Debian as we possibly can. If we fix a package that both exists > > in Debian and has the same bug, we are encouraged to send that fix > > upstream to the Debian bug tracker (or upstream itself, or both) to > > ensure less friction when we have to merge new changes from Debian. Some > > teams within Ubuntu do not follow this process at all, but I would > > consider them the exception rather than the rule. > > > > The Debian maintainers of a package are not responsible for how their > > packages are used in Ubuntu, that's Ubuntu's responsibility. That being > > said, it is best practice to collaborate as much as we reasonably can, > > with the time we are given. > > > > > 1. Debian and Ubuntu both have separate bug trackers. But for most > > > > > > Ubuntu packages, there's no "Ubuntu" maintainer: there's just the > > > indirect one from Debian. In this case (which is most packages), > > > it's > > > unhelpful for the Ubuntu bug tracker to exist as a separate thing. > > > If > > > it must exist as a separate thing, those bugs should be forwarded > > > automatically to the Debian bug tracker. And updates (including > > > status updates) should be ingested back into the Ubuntu tracker. For > > > my packages I do try to manually look at the Ubuntu bug reports, but > > > I have no rights to close those bugs on launchpad. Probably I can > > > sign up somewhere, but as the DEBIAN developer, I shouldn't need to > > > do that. > > > > I disagree with this approach. Ubuntu and Debian are not ABI-compatible; > > Ubuntu has a slightly different toolchain than Debian, and there are > > core differences in e.g. dpkg. Not all Ubuntu bugs are Debian bugs, not > > all Ubuntu teams want their bugs sent up to Debian, and many Debian > > Maintainers don't care about Ubuntu. This is a reality of maintaining > > separate distributions. > > > > In some common cases, yes this seems reasonable, we should forward bugs > > to Debian. That being said, the first step is making sure the bug > > actually exists in the Debian-built version of the package, which is not > > always the case. > > > > Generally, I do think we can be better about triaging our bugs and > > sending what we can up to Debian. That being said, I disagree with the > > solution of completely automating it. > > > > > 2. As I just discovered, when Ubuntu rebuilds the archive for a release, > > > > > > packages that FTBFS are silently dropped. There's no bug report on > > > either of the two bug trackers. I'm upstream for a project that has > > > been excluded from 24.04 because of this gap in the process. There > > > really should be a bug report filed, so that the problem can be > > > fixe
Re: Can we collaborate with Debian better?
There is a little bit more on "removing packages" here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/PackageArchive#Removing_Packages So it's actually a 'must' to have a LP bug for getting a package removed. BR, Frank On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 7:32 PM Simon Quigley wrote: > Hi Dima, > > As a Debian Developer myself, I understand your concerns. Processes in > this respect could be slightly better, but it also comes down to the > differences between the two distributions. More detailed responses inline. > > On 5/2/24 10:56 AM, Dima Kogan wrote: > > Hello. > > > > I'm a Debian developer, and contribute to Ubuntu only indirectly: by my > > contributions to Debian being automatically pulled into Ubuntu. But > > since Ubuntu has more users than Debian, most of MY users use the Ubuntu > > packages. So I'd like to talk about improving the links between the two > > projects. In particular: > > Ubuntu and Debian package maintenance responsibilities are slightly > different; in Ubuntu, members of the Core Developers team are > collectively responsible for the packages in the Main and Restricted > components, and Masters of the Universe are collectively responsible for > packages in the Universe and Multiverse. The ratio of "maintainers > holding responsibility":"packages to be maintained" is much lower in > Ubuntu than it is in Debian. > > Once a package has landed in the Ubuntu archive, Ubuntu Developers now > collectively hold responsibility for that package. We ease much of this > work by autosyncing packages without deltas to Ubuntu in the first half > of each cycle; that being said, we sometimes drive major transitions in > Ubuntu before Debian, to align with our release cycle. > > Many Ubuntu Developers (myself included) are trained to give as much > back to Debian as we possibly can. If we fix a package that both exists > in Debian and has the same bug, we are encouraged to send that fix > upstream to the Debian bug tracker (or upstream itself, or both) to > ensure less friction when we have to merge new changes from Debian. Some > teams within Ubuntu do not follow this process at all, but I would > consider them the exception rather than the rule. > > The Debian maintainers of a package are not responsible for how their > packages are used in Ubuntu, that's Ubuntu's responsibility. That being > said, it is best practice to collaborate as much as we reasonably can, > with the time we are given. > > > 1. Debian and Ubuntu both have separate bug trackers. But for most > > Ubuntu packages, there's no "Ubuntu" maintainer: there's just the > > indirect one from Debian. In this case (which is most packages), it's > > unhelpful for the Ubuntu bug tracker to exist as a separate thing. If > > it must exist as a separate thing, those bugs should be forwarded > > automatically to the Debian bug tracker. And updates (including > > status updates) should be ingested back into the Ubuntu tracker. For > > my packages I do try to manually look at the Ubuntu bug reports, but > > I have no rights to close those bugs on launchpad. Probably I can > > sign up somewhere, but as the DEBIAN developer, I shouldn't need to > > do that. > > I disagree with this approach. Ubuntu and Debian are not ABI-compatible; > Ubuntu has a slightly different toolchain than Debian, and there are > core differences in e.g. dpkg. Not all Ubuntu bugs are Debian bugs, not > all Ubuntu teams want their bugs sent up to Debian, and many Debian > Maintainers don't care about Ubuntu. This is a reality of maintaining > separate distributions. > > In some common cases, yes this seems reasonable, we should forward bugs > to Debian. That being said, the first step is making sure the bug > actually exists in the Debian-built version of the package, which is not > always the case. > > Generally, I do think we can be better about triaging our bugs and > sending what we can up to Debian. That being said, I disagree with the > solution of completely automating it. > > > 2. As I just discovered, when Ubuntu rebuilds the archive for a release, > > packages that FTBFS are silently dropped. There's no bug report on > > either of the two bug trackers. I'm upstream for a project that has > > been excluded from 24.04 because of this gap in the process. There > > really should be a bug report filed, so that the problem can be fixed > > before the release (what Debian does for their releases). And this > > should be filed on the Debian bug tracker, if that's where the > > maintenance happens. > > This entirely falls on the Ubuntu Archive Administrators. To my > understanding as an Ubuntu Developer, if we want a package removed, it > is best practice to either have a Debian removal bug or an Ubuntu > removal bug explaining the rationale. Whether this is enforced is up to > the Archive Administrator doing the removal, since the only known public > documentation says nothing about filing bugs: > https://wiki.ubunt
Re: Can we collaborate with Debian better?
On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 3:12 AM Dima Kogan wrote: > 2. As I just discovered, when Ubuntu rebuilds the archive for a release, >packages that FTBFS are silently dropped. There's no bug report on >either of the two bug trackers. I'm upstream for a project that has >been excluded from 24.04 because of this gap in the process. There >really should be a bug report filed, so that the problem can be fixed >before the release (what Debian does for their releases). And this >should be filed on the Debian bug tracker, if that's where the >maintenance happens. Visit https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mrcal and click "View publishing history". Click the drop down arrow next to the most recent Deleted entry. It says that Matthias Klose deleted the package and it points to a Debian bug number. That Debian bug was filed by Matthias on that day. Unfortunately, at that point there was very little time before the Ubuntu 24.04 LTS release and manual work was necessary to fix the bug. mrcal was caught up in the mass rebuild required for xz-utils mitigation, which meant that it needed to be buildable or it was not possible to include it in the Ubuntu 24.04 LTS release. mrcal was uploaded to Debian in February but mrbuild 1.9 and 1.10 weren't uploaded until weeks later, after Debian Import Freeze when autosyncs are stopped. https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/noble-numbat-release-schedule/35649 https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/oracular-oriole-release-schedule/36460 Thank you, Jeremy Bícha -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Can we collaborate with Debian better?
Hi Dima, As a Debian Developer myself, I understand your concerns. Processes in this respect could be slightly better, but it also comes down to the differences between the two distributions. More detailed responses inline. On 5/2/24 10:56 AM, Dima Kogan wrote: Hello. I'm a Debian developer, and contribute to Ubuntu only indirectly: by my contributions to Debian being automatically pulled into Ubuntu. But since Ubuntu has more users than Debian, most of MY users use the Ubuntu packages. So I'd like to talk about improving the links between the two projects. In particular: Ubuntu and Debian package maintenance responsibilities are slightly different; in Ubuntu, members of the Core Developers team are collectively responsible for the packages in the Main and Restricted components, and Masters of the Universe are collectively responsible for packages in the Universe and Multiverse. The ratio of "maintainers holding responsibility":"packages to be maintained" is much lower in Ubuntu than it is in Debian. Once a package has landed in the Ubuntu archive, Ubuntu Developers now collectively hold responsibility for that package. We ease much of this work by autosyncing packages without deltas to Ubuntu in the first half of each cycle; that being said, we sometimes drive major transitions in Ubuntu before Debian, to align with our release cycle. Many Ubuntu Developers (myself included) are trained to give as much back to Debian as we possibly can. If we fix a package that both exists in Debian and has the same bug, we are encouraged to send that fix upstream to the Debian bug tracker (or upstream itself, or both) to ensure less friction when we have to merge new changes from Debian. Some teams within Ubuntu do not follow this process at all, but I would consider them the exception rather than the rule. The Debian maintainers of a package are not responsible for how their packages are used in Ubuntu, that's Ubuntu's responsibility. That being said, it is best practice to collaborate as much as we reasonably can, with the time we are given. 1. Debian and Ubuntu both have separate bug trackers. But for most Ubuntu packages, there's no "Ubuntu" maintainer: there's just the indirect one from Debian. In this case (which is most packages), it's unhelpful for the Ubuntu bug tracker to exist as a separate thing. If it must exist as a separate thing, those bugs should be forwarded automatically to the Debian bug tracker. And updates (including status updates) should be ingested back into the Ubuntu tracker. For my packages I do try to manually look at the Ubuntu bug reports, but I have no rights to close those bugs on launchpad. Probably I can sign up somewhere, but as the DEBIAN developer, I shouldn't need to do that. I disagree with this approach. Ubuntu and Debian are not ABI-compatible; Ubuntu has a slightly different toolchain than Debian, and there are core differences in e.g. dpkg. Not all Ubuntu bugs are Debian bugs, not all Ubuntu teams want their bugs sent up to Debian, and many Debian Maintainers don't care about Ubuntu. This is a reality of maintaining separate distributions. In some common cases, yes this seems reasonable, we should forward bugs to Debian. That being said, the first step is making sure the bug actually exists in the Debian-built version of the package, which is not always the case. Generally, I do think we can be better about triaging our bugs and sending what we can up to Debian. That being said, I disagree with the solution of completely automating it. 2. As I just discovered, when Ubuntu rebuilds the archive for a release, packages that FTBFS are silently dropped. There's no bug report on either of the two bug trackers. I'm upstream for a project that has been excluded from 24.04 because of this gap in the process. There really should be a bug report filed, so that the problem can be fixed before the release (what Debian does for their releases). And this should be filed on the Debian bug tracker, if that's where the maintenance happens. This entirely falls on the Ubuntu Archive Administrators. To my understanding as an Ubuntu Developer, if we want a package removed, it is best practice to either have a Debian removal bug or an Ubuntu removal bug explaining the rationale. Whether this is enforced is up to the Archive Administrator doing the removal, since the only known public documentation says nothing about filing bugs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArchiveAdministration#Removals To say that packages that FTBFS are indiscriminately removed during transitions ignores the fact that usually, we do have to file a bug if we want an AA to remove a package. I don't know how hard the above is, but the current situation isn't great for either of us. Related question: is there any way to get my packages included into some sort of noble "updates", or something like that?
Can we collaborate with Debian better?
Hello. I'm a Debian developer, and contribute to Ubuntu only indirectly: by my contributions to Debian being automatically pulled into Ubuntu. But since Ubuntu has more users than Debian, most of MY users use the Ubuntu packages. So I'd like to talk about improving the links between the two projects. In particular: 1. Debian and Ubuntu both have separate bug trackers. But for most Ubuntu packages, there's no "Ubuntu" maintainer: there's just the indirect one from Debian. In this case (which is most packages), it's unhelpful for the Ubuntu bug tracker to exist as a separate thing. If it must exist as a separate thing, those bugs should be forwarded automatically to the Debian bug tracker. And updates (including status updates) should be ingested back into the Ubuntu tracker. For my packages I do try to manually look at the Ubuntu bug reports, but I have no rights to close those bugs on launchpad. Probably I can sign up somewhere, but as the DEBIAN developer, I shouldn't need to do that. 2. As I just discovered, when Ubuntu rebuilds the archive for a release, packages that FTBFS are silently dropped. There's no bug report on either of the two bug trackers. I'm upstream for a project that has been excluded from 24.04 because of this gap in the process. There really should be a bug report filed, so that the problem can be fixed before the release (what Debian does for their releases). And this should be filed on the Debian bug tracker, if that's where the maintenance happens. I don't know how hard the above is, but the current situation isn't great for either of us. Related question: is there any way to get my packages included into some sort of noble "updates", or something like that? I'm looking at the "mrcal" source package that had an ininteresting FTBFS bug due to some dependency changing its interface. There was a Debian bug report filed and quickly fixed, but this happened too late for noble: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067398 The fix is to update the "mrbuild" package to at least 1.9. Is it possible to get an updated "mrbuild" and "mrcal" into 24.04? If I'm misinterpreting what's going on, please let me know. Right now I see this: dima@shorty:~$ rmadison -u ubuntu mrbuild | grep noble mrbuild | 1.8-1 | noble/universe| source, all dima@shorty:~$ rmadison -u ubuntu libmrcal-dev | grep noble libmrcal-dev | 2.4.1-1build1 | noble-proposed/universe| arm64, ppc64el, riscv64 The latest mrcal IS 2.4.1, but here it's in "noble-proposed" and not for amd64 for some reason. Thanks. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
