Friday, 6 December 2019

Re: i386 in focal: an update

acl
alglib
alsa-lib
ann
aom
apache2
apparmor
apt
atk1.0
at-spi2-atk
at-spi2-core
attr
bash
bind9
binutils
bluez
boost1.67
brotli
bubblewrap
bzip2
cairo
capnproto
ceph
cfitsio
cluster-glue
clutter-1.0
cmake
colord
confuse
coreutils
corosync
cunit
cups
cython
dash
datefudge
dbus
dbus-glib
dbus-python
dconf
devscripts
dietlibc
distro-info
dlm
docbook-to-man
double-conversion
doxygen
dpkg
dxvk
ed
espeak
espeak-ng
evolution-data-server
fakeroot
faketime
faudio
fenix
fenix-plugins
ffmpeg
fftw3
fig2dev
firebird3.0
flite
fluidsynth
fpc
freeglut
fribidi
fyba
game-data-packager
gcc-8
gcc-9
gcc-snapshot
gconf
gcr
gdbm
gdisk
gdk-pixbuf
gem2deb
geocode-glib
gl2ps
glib2.0
glibc
glib-networking
gnupg2
gnuplot
gnutls28
gobject-introspection
gpgme1.0
graphene
graphite2
graphviz
grep
gspell
gtk+2.0
gtk+3.0
gtkmm2.4
gvfs
gzip
harfbuzz
hwloc
ibus
icu
imagemagick
inetutils
initramfs-tools
init-system-helpers
iproute2
iptables
jdupes
jemalloc
json-glib
kconfig
keyutils
krb5
kronosnet
ladspa-sdk
lapack
lbfgsb
leveldb
libanyevent-perl
libarchive
libassuan
libasync-interrupt-perl
libb-hooks-op-check-perl
libbsd-resource-perl
libcaca
libcap2
libclone-perl
libcommon-sense-perl
libdaemon
libdatrie
libdevel-callchecker-perl
libevent-perl
libev-perl
libfile-libmagic-perl
libfilter-perl
libgd2
libgdata
libgd-perl
libglib-perl
libgpg-error
libgphoto2
libhtml-parser-perl
libical3
libinput
libio-pty-perl
libiptcdata
libjsoncpp
libkate
liblinux-epoll-perl
liblist-moreutils-perl
liblocale-gettext-perl
libmicrohttpd
libnetaddr-ip-perl
libnet-ssleay-perl
libnfs
libnotify
libofa
liboggz
libomxil-bellagio
libopenmpt
libparams-classify-perl
libparams-util-perl
libparams-validate-perl
libperlio-gzip-perl
libpipeline
libproxy
libpsl
libqb
libraw
librsvg
libsass
libsdl2
libsdl-sge
libseccomp
libsecret
libsocket6-perl
libsort-key-perl
libsoup2.4
libsoxr
libssh
libstb
libsub-identify-perl
libsub-name-perl
libtaint-runtime-perl
libtest-leaktrace-perl
libtest-taint-perl
libtext-charwidth-perl
libtext-iconv-perl
libthai
libtheora
libtommath
libunicode-utf8-perl
libusb-1.0
libutempter
libuuid-perl
libuv1
libvariable-magic-perl
libvisual
libvncserver
libvorbis
libvpx
libwacom
libwant-perl
libwmf
libxcb
libxml2
libxml-libxml-perl
libxml-parser-perl
libyaml-libyaml-perl
libzstd
linux
livecd-rootfs
llvm-toolchain-9
matplotlib
mawk
mir
mpi4py
mpich
multipath-tools
munge
mysql-8.0
ncurses
ndctl
network-manager
nghttp2
ninja-build
nss-mdns
nss-wrapper
numpy
openjdk-lts
openldap
openssh
openssl
pacemaker
pango1.0
perl
php7.3
pillow
pinentry
policykit-1
poppler
postgresql-12
protobuf
pulseaudio
pupnp-1.8
pygobject
pypy
pyqt5
python2.7
python3.7
python3.8
python-apt
python-bcrypt
python-cffi
python-coverage
python-cryptography
python-evdev
python-lz4
python-nacl
python-numpy
python-scandir
python-scipy
py-ubjson
pyyaml
raqm
re2
re2c
rhash
rsync
ruby2.5
ruby-defaults
ruby-json
ruby-nokogiri
samba
sane-backends
sdlgfx
sed
snapd-glib
sonic
spdlog
stunnel4
superlu
svox
swig
systemd
systemtap
talloc
tdb
twisted
ubuntu-drivers-common
uchardet
udisks2
umockdev
update-notifier
upower
util-linux
valgrind
vim
vlc
vorbis-tools
vtk6
vtk7
x264
x265
xapian-core
xdg-dbus-proxy
xterm
zope.interface
zsh
zvbi
Hi folks,

The changes to i386 have proceeded as described in my earlier email. The
autopkgtest infrastructure has been converted to run tests of i386 binaries
on an amd64 VM, and i386 binaries not in the whitelist are now in the
process of being removed. As of this moment, there are 1,679 source
packages in the whitelist for i386, and 8,921 source packages with published
i386 binary packages in focal, vs. 14,344 source packages with published
amd64 binaries. At the current rate, I expect the binary removals to
complete some time tomorrow.

On the autopkgtest side, there are now a total of 311 source packages
producing i386 binaries which also have autopkgtests[1]. Any packages
reporting autopkgtest regressions on i386 which are not on this list should
have their test failures ignored; if you see i386 autopkgtest failures for
other packages blocking migrations out of focal-proposed, please ask a
member of the release team to override.

It's good that the number of remaining autopkgtests for i386 is as small as
it is, because while the /infrastructure/ is now capable of cross-testing
i386 packages on amd64, the vast majority of these tests don't run correctly
in such an environment without modification. I have triggered runs of all
of these tests on the amd64 testbed, so current status of the tests is
visible on autopkgtest.ubuntu.com for each package.

Since these tests have also de facto regressed in the release pocket due to
changes to the infrastructure, it is appropriate for those test failures to
be ignored for proposed-migration purposes as well. I intend to go through
and systematically mark these as bad tests, but in the meantime if you have
package migrations that are being blocked by one of these, please reach out.


The other thing that you can do is help fix the failing autopkgtests, so
that we have better test coverage on i386. I've identified a few common
patterns so far in the test failures:

- Tests of Essential or Priority: required/import packages that require removing
the amd64 package in favor of the i386 package (e.g.: bash, apt,
systemd). These tests will never work, and - outside of launchpad
builds, where we are still building i386 natively instead of on an amd64
host - these packages aren't relevant to the i386 experience on focal.
These test failures should be permanently ignored.

- Tests with test dependencies on python on perl modules. It's a
longstanding known issue with multiarch that python and perl modules pose
problems for cross-installation, because they depend on the interpreter
of the matching architecture. Neither perl nor python can be
cross-installed on the testbed (the amd64 versions are both part of the
test infrastructure), so these tests will always fail with 'badpkg'.
While some of these tests may be more relevant to the behavior of our
i386 runtime libraries, fixing them is largely intractable so these are a
low priority.

- Tests with other uninstallable test dependencies ("badpkg"). Many of
these are going to be fixable, but require either annotations of
additional packages in the archive as Multi-Arch: foreign (if
appropriate), or annotations of the test dependencies in
debian/tests/control with architecture information. The autopkgtest
dependency resolver for cross-testing uses apt-get build-dep, so that the
full range of multiarch build-dependency specifiers are available as
described at <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchCross>.

- Build tests. These are common tests for libraries, and some of the
easiest to fix, but most don't work out of the box because they don't
invoke the cross-toolchain. Here are some example patches for various
types of build systems used in build tests:
- pkg-config: https://bugs.debian.org/946303
- meson: https://bugs.debian.org/946292

Happy fixing,
--
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/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

[1] See attachment. List calculated by:
$ join -j1 <(wget -O - -q -o /dev/null \
https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/germinate-output/i386.focal/i386+build-depends.sources \
| awk '{ print $1 }' | sort) \
<(cat /var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_focal_*Sources \
| grep-dctrl -r -FTestsuite . -a '!' -FArchitecture -X all \
-sPackage -n | sort)

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:46:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Thanks to thorough feedback from our community, we now have a reasonably
> comprehensive answer to the question of what 32-bit compatibility library
> packages are needed on x86 for Ubuntu 20.04.
>
> https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/community-process-for-32-bit-compatibility/12598/46
>
> Some developers will have noticed changes this week to the behavior of focal
> builds in Launchpad. Out of 30,000 source packages in focal, there is now a
> whitelist of about 1,700 source packages which will trigger builds on i386
> in Launchpad. This means that other packages which previously built on i386
> will need to have the binaries from the old version of the package removed
> before they will be migratable from focal-proposed to focal.
>
>
> As a side note, the implementation of this also affects PPA builds, because
> the whitelist applies to the focal series as a whole. In general, you
> should not expect to need i386 builds of third-party packages in PPAs for
> focal either, given that i386 in focal exists solely for compatibility with
> legacy binary software. However, if you have a third-party package that you
> believe it's important to continue producing i386 binary builds of in
> Launchpad for Ubuntu 20.04, please contact the Ubuntu archive admins
> (ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com, or #ubuntu-devel on freenode.net for best
> results), and we can evaluate including your PPA package in the whitelist.
>
>
> At the moment, I am doing some manual removals of the i386 binaries as I see
> them show up as blockers on
> https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html
> and as I'm able to determine that the removals aren't going to cause
> near-term knock-on problems. But if some i386 binaries aren't being removed
> fast enough and this is blocking your work, feel free to reach out to an
> archive admin to ask for their removal.
>
> In the slightly less near term, the plan is to do a mass binary removal of
> all of the i386 binary packages in focal built from sources other than those
> in the whitelist. However, before pulling the trigger on this mass removal,
> there are some changes that should be landed to our autopkgtest
> infrastructure, so that we can continue to run autopkgtests for those
> remaining 1700 packages. In summary: the plan is not to retain the test
> dependencies of those 1700 packages on i386, but instead to cross-test the
> i386 libraries on an amd64 host, which ultimately means testing them in an
> environment that better models the expected real-world usage. The work is
> in progress for this change and I'm currently anticipating landing it next
> week.
>
> In the meantime, if you need any help getting packages migrating to the
> focal release from -proposed, please reach out on #ubuntu-release on IRC.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> 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/
> slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

Tuesday, 3 December 2019

Re: selective sync from debian: haproxy case

Thanks for all the answers. I think I will add an ubuntu version to
the package, but no further changes. I can track debian updates in the
merges report. The bug approach with a tag seems a bit fragile.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:33 PM Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:52:08PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:35 PM Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:03:01PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> > > > haproxy is currently a sync in ubuntu, at version 2.0.10-1. The 2.0.x
> > > > line is upstream's stable LTS line, and I would like to stay there.
>
> > > > Debian experimental already has 2.1.0-2, which is also an upstream
> > > > stable line, but not an LTS.
>
> > > > I would prefer that we don't move to 2.1.0 for the next ubuntu LTS
> > > > version, so how would I go about preventing that from being synced
> > > > into Ubuntu should debian move 2.1.0 from experimental to unstable? I
> > > > would like to continue to receive updates from unstable as long as
> > > > it's tracking the 2.0.x upstream line.
>
> > > > Some options I heard about:
> > > > a) sync blacklist
> > > > (https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-archive/+junk/sync-blacklist/view/head:/sync-blacklist.txt)
> > > > b) add an ubuntu version to the package, even though it's identical to
> > > > the debian one
>
> > > > Any other options?
>
> > > I wouldn't recommend using the sync blacklist, since it's not self-service
> > > (~ubuntu-archive) and it also blocks you from doing manual syncs using the
> > > standard tools (syncpackage).
>
> > > Setting a fake Ubuntu version seems doable, and managing the flow of new
> > > versions as merges, if a bit ugly.
>
> > I can work with that.
>
> > > What about using a block-proposed bug on the package instead?
>
> > Hm, let's see how that would work.
>
> > I file a bug saying this package shouldn't be synced automatically
> > (for example), and add that tag. Then each time there is a debian
> > update, it will not migrate, and I will check if that update is one I
> > want to have.
> > If yes, I remove the tag, let it migrate, and add the tag back again.
> > If not, I leave it as is, or perhaps ask someone from the release team
> > to remove it from proposed? Won't it just be synced again then?
>
> Yes, you can either add/remove the tag, or open/close the bug.
>
> If at some point before DebianImportFreeze, Debian moves to 2.1.0 in
> unstable, then obviously any further syncs this cycle are also going to be
> of versions you don't want. So you would want to leave the bug open, and
> leave the synced version in -proposed /unless/ you needed to do an
> Ubuntu-specific upload of haproxy, in which case you could ask an archive
> admin to temporarily remove the synced version from -proposed, do your
> upload, let it migrate to the release pocket, and then have the synced
> version copied back (so that it's ready for inclusion in 20.10).
>
> --
> 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/
> slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
> --
> 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

Monday, 2 December 2019

Re: selective sync from debian: haproxy case

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:52:08PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:35 PM Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@ubuntu.com> wrote:

> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:03:01PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> > > haproxy is currently a sync in ubuntu, at version 2.0.10-1. The 2.0.x
> > > line is upstream's stable LTS line, and I would like to stay there.

> > > Debian experimental already has 2.1.0-2, which is also an upstream
> > > stable line, but not an LTS.

> > > I would prefer that we don't move to 2.1.0 for the next ubuntu LTS
> > > version, so how would I go about preventing that from being synced
> > > into Ubuntu should debian move 2.1.0 from experimental to unstable? I
> > > would like to continue to receive updates from unstable as long as
> > > it's tracking the 2.0.x upstream line.

> > > Some options I heard about:
> > > a) sync blacklist
> > > (https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-archive/+junk/sync-blacklist/view/head:/sync-blacklist.txt)
> > > b) add an ubuntu version to the package, even though it's identical to
> > > the debian one

> > > Any other options?

> > I wouldn't recommend using the sync blacklist, since it's not self-service
> > (~ubuntu-archive) and it also blocks you from doing manual syncs using the
> > standard tools (syncpackage).

> > Setting a fake Ubuntu version seems doable, and managing the flow of new
> > versions as merges, if a bit ugly.

> I can work with that.

> > What about using a block-proposed bug on the package instead?

> Hm, let's see how that would work.

> I file a bug saying this package shouldn't be synced automatically
> (for example), and add that tag. Then each time there is a debian
> update, it will not migrate, and I will check if that update is one I
> want to have.
> If yes, I remove the tag, let it migrate, and add the tag back again.
> If not, I leave it as is, or perhaps ask someone from the release team
> to remove it from proposed? Won't it just be synced again then?

Yes, you can either add/remove the tag, or open/close the bug.

If at some point before DebianImportFreeze, Debian moves to 2.1.0 in
unstable, then obviously any further syncs this cycle are also going to be
of versions you don't want. So you would want to leave the bug open, and
leave the synced version in -proposed /unless/ you needed to do an
Ubuntu-specific upload of haproxy, in which case you could ask an archive
admin to temporarily remove the synced version from -proposed, do your
upload, let it migrate to the release pocket, and then have the synced
version copied back (so that it's ready for inclusion in 20.10).

--
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/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

Re: selective sync from debian: haproxy case

I have no real opinion on the main question, but on a question of fact:

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:52:08PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:35 PM Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > What about using a block-proposed bug on the package instead?
>
> Hm, let's see how that would work.
>
> I file a bug saying this package shouldn't be synced automatically
> (for example), and add that tag. Then each time there is a debian
> update, it will not migrate, and I will check if that update is one I
> want to have.
> If yes, I remove the tag, let it migrate, and add the tag back again.
> If not, I leave it as is, or perhaps ask someone from the release team
> to remove it from proposed? Won't it just be synced again then?

You'd likely want it removed from -proposed in that case so that it's
possible to upload new versions. It wouldn't be auto-synced unless a
newer version is then uploaded to Debian unstable.

It might be worth somebody investigating beefing up auto-sync to support
"block-auto-sync" bugs on packages for this sort of situation.

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: selective sync from debian: haproxy case

Hi Steve,

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:35 PM Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:03:01PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > haproxy is currently a sync in ubuntu, at version 2.0.10-1. The 2.0.x
> > line is upstream's stable LTS line, and I would like to stay there.
> >
> > Debian experimental already has 2.1.0-2, which is also an upstream
> > stable line, but not an LTS.
> >
> > I would prefer that we don't move to 2.1.0 for the next ubuntu LTS
> > version, so how would I go about preventing that from being synced
> > into Ubuntu should debian move 2.1.0 from experimental to unstable? I
> > would like to continue to receive updates from unstable as long as
> > it's tracking the 2.0.x upstream line.
>
> > Some options I heard about:
> > a) sync blacklist
> > (https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-archive/+junk/sync-blacklist/view/head:/sync-blacklist.txt)
> > b) add an ubuntu version to the package, even though it's identical to
> > the debian one
>
> > Any other options?
>
> I wouldn't recommend using the sync blacklist, since it's not self-service
> (~ubuntu-archive) and it also blocks you from doing manual syncs using the
> standard tools (syncpackage).
>
> Setting a fake Ubuntu version seems doable, and managing the flow of new
> versions as merges, if a bit ugly.

I can work with that.

> What about using a block-proposed bug on the package instead?

Hm, let's see how that would work.

I file a bug saying this package shouldn't be synced automatically
(for example), and add that tag. Then each time there is a debian
update, it will not migrate, and I will check if that update is one I
want to have.
If yes, I remove the tag, let it migrate, and add the tag back again.
If not, I leave it as is, or perhaps ask someone from the release team
to remove it from proposed? Won't it just be synced again then?

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Re: selective sync from debian: haproxy case

Hi Andreas,

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:03:01PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> haproxy is currently a sync in ubuntu, at version 2.0.10-1. The 2.0.x
> line is upstream's stable LTS line, and I would like to stay there.
>
> Debian experimental already has 2.1.0-2, which is also an upstream
> stable line, but not an LTS.
>
> I would prefer that we don't move to 2.1.0 for the next ubuntu LTS
> version, so how would I go about preventing that from being synced
> into Ubuntu should debian move 2.1.0 from experimental to unstable? I
> would like to continue to receive updates from unstable as long as
> it's tracking the 2.0.x upstream line.

> Some options I heard about:
> a) sync blacklist
> (https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-archive/+junk/sync-blacklist/view/head:/sync-blacklist.txt)
> b) add an ubuntu version to the package, even though it's identical to
> the debian one

> Any other options?

I wouldn't recommend using the sync blacklist, since it's not self-service
(~ubuntu-archive) and it also blocks you from doing manual syncs using the
standard tools (syncpackage).

Setting a fake Ubuntu version seems doable, and managing the flow of new
versions as merges, if a bit ugly.

What about using a block-proposed bug on the package instead?

--
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/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

selective sync from debian: haproxy case

Hi all,

haproxy is currently a sync in ubuntu, at version 2.0.10-1. The 2.0.x
line is upstream's stable LTS line, and I would like to stay there.

Debian experimental already has 2.1.0-2, which is also an upstream
stable line, but not an LTS.

I would prefer that we don't move to 2.1.0 for the next ubuntu LTS
version, so how would I go about preventing that from being synced
into Ubuntu should debian move 2.1.0 from experimental to unstable? I
would like to continue to receive updates from unstable as long as
it's tracking the 2.0.x upstream line.

Some options I heard about:
a) sync blacklist
(https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-archive/+junk/sync-blacklist/view/head:/sync-blacklist.txt)
b) add an ubuntu version to the package, even though it's identical to
the debian one

Any other options?

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel