Hi, On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:54 AM Lucas Kanashiro <kanash...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 14/09/2023 09:33, Andreas Hasenack wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 8:06 AM Lucas Kanashiro <kanash...@ubuntu.com> > > wrote: > >> Hi Andreas, > >> > >> On 13/09/2023 11:58, Andreas Hasenack wrote: > >>> Hi Lucas, > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 6:14 PM Lucas Kanashiro <kanash...@ubuntu.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Hi SRU team, > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to ask for an update of the Docker.io group SRU exception [1] > >>>> to also include the two new Docker CLI plugins that are now in the > >>>> archive (Mantic): > >>>> > >>>> - docker-buildx > >>>> - docker-compose-v2 > >>> Sorry for taking to long to get to this request. > >> No problem. > >> > >>>> They are self contained (no reverse dependencies). They will also > >>>> considerably improve the experience of our Docker users across all > >>>> releases. Those 2 new packages are really tightened to the Docker > >>>> version we have and it would be great to keep it consistent everywhere. > >>>> > >>>> My idea is to not allow the backport of versions .0 of those packages as > >>>> we do with docker.io-app. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DockerUpdates > >>> Approved on the condition that we have a few new DEP8 tests. I think > > But also please see my comment about docker-compose vs > > docker-compose-v2 at the end > > > > > >>> this is importand because, per SRU exception[1] for this group of > >>> packages, DEP8 tests are basically the only tests performed. > >> Do you mean the current DEP-8 tests are not enough? > > There is no "docker build" in the current DEP-8 tests, much less with > > DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1 (I'm looking at mantic), and no test for docker > > compose, even to check its presence. You are asking to include two > > packages in an exception which relies on the DEP-8 tests, so yes, I > > think these two new packages should be tested. > > There is a call to "docker build" in line 24 of d/t/basic-smoke of > docker-buildx.
Ah, I was checking src:docker.io-app, sorry. Looking at the correct package now, src:docker-buildx, it uses "docker buildx" indeed. Ok then, we just need a normal build (not buildx) with and without the env var, like what triggered the regression report. Just be wary that this env var usage might disappear in the future I suppose, as buildkit becomes default. Then the test would be moot and could be removed. Something to keep an eye on. > The "docker compose" command is called multiple times in d/t/basic-smoke > of docker-compose-v2. Same thing, sorry. I was looking at src:docker.io-app. ACK on docker-compose-v2, no further tests needed. > AFAICS just the DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1 is not covered by the current tests. Correct, with a normal "docker build" command. > > Noted on the binary package. So what will happen to the old > > bin:docker-compose? > > TBH I plan to do nothing, it is sync'ed from Debian and it is a totally > different package (even written in a different programming language). Ok, that's something for an AA to sort out when the time comes. -- Ubuntu-release mailing list Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
