| === Feren^IRCCloud_ is now known as Feren^IRCCloud | |
| === hikiko is now known as hikiko|ln | |
| === Ken is now known as Guest14755 | |
| === scottt is now known as Guest41818 | |
| === hikiko|ln is now known as hikiko | |
| [15:57] <attente> hi, i'm trying to sru bubblewrap to xenial: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bubblewrap/+bug/1649330 | |
| [15:57] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 1649330 in bubblewrap (Ubuntu) "[SRU] bubblewrap unavailable on xenial" [Undecided,New] | |
| [15:58] <attente> i'm not sure what the process is for sru'ing a new package there, is there something i need to do? i don't have upload rights | |
| [16:02] <rbasak> attente: there's not much of a defined process as it's a pretty rare thing. You'll need sponsorship, an archive admin's approval, and an SRU team member's approval. | |
| [16:02] <rbasak> attente: and you'll need to prepare the upload. | |
| [16:03] <rbasak> I won't know what ordering to recommend. | |
| [16:03] <rbasak> don't know | |
| [16:03] <rbasak> If it were me, I'd seek approval from everyone involved before getting a sponsor to upload, since that avoids tangling stuff up with Launchpad technicalities. | |
| [16:04] <rbasak> The archive admin and SRU team member may be the same person, I don't know. | |
| [16:04] <rbasak> Hope that helps. | |
| [16:04] <rbasak> And I'd prepare the proposed upload in a git or bzr tree, so that every reviewer can review in one place instead of the scattergun-and-reject-from-the-queue approach. | |
| [16:05] <attente> rbasak: ok, thanks | |
| [16:07] <rbasak> attente: OTOH, consider using the backports pocket, but I presume you've already ruled that out for some reason? | |
| [16:08] <attente> rbasak: i believe the integration tests don't run in an environment with backports enabled | |
| [16:08] <attente> rbasak: (this is for a snapcraft branch) | |
| [16:10] <rbasak> If that's the only reason, it sounds like the integration tests need fixing to work with backports, rather than putting the package in updates just because of that. | |
| [16:11] <attente> is it ok to generally assume that backports will be enabled on a user's machine? | |
| [16:12] <attente> if this branch gets merged, then snapcraft on xenial will require that once that's sru'd | |
| [16:12] <rbasak> I believe backports is generally available by default but pinned from packages from it being used except when specifically requested. | |
| [16:12] <rbasak> If snapcraft is in updates, it shouldn't have a dependency on backports. | |
| [16:12] <rbasak> So that's a more solid reason that this needs to go into updates. | |
| [16:12] <rbasak> (or it's a reason that snapcraft should have been in backports, depending on your perspective) | |
| [16:13] <attente> snapcraft is generally sru'd back to xenial, right? | |
| [16:13] <rbasak> I don't know. | |
| [16:14] <attente> i see for example: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapcraft/+bug/1614322 | |
| [16:14] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 1614322 in snapcraft (Ubuntu Yakkety) "[SRU] New stable micro release 2.15" [Undecided,Fix released] | |
| [16:15] <attente> so my impression is that backports might not be enough for this case | |
| [16:17] <rbasak> It does sound that way. | |
| [16:22] <attente> rbasak: would it be frowned upon if i copied the packaging from yakkety's or zesty's archive? | |
| [16:23] <rbasak> attente: no, that's absolutely fine. | |
| [16:23] <rbasak> attente: just add a new changelog entry to the top, and get the package versioning right. Assuming it works :-) | |
| [16:23] <attente> rbasak: sounds good, thanks! :) | |
| === scottt is now known as Guest87990 | |