| Message ID | 20240207022206.256617-1-masahiro.yamada@canonical.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Make snapcraft.yaml work | expand |
Still missing the requested SRU tag and SRU justification. Why are you refusing to follow our process? ...Juerg On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:22:04 +0900 Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago, > which is not functional at all. > > Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml. > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468 > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel > snap > > snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) >
On 07/02/2024 03:22, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago, > which is not functional at all. > > Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml. > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468 > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel > snap > > snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > Aren;t you supposed to be on holiday? :P
Hi On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 06:46, Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > Still missing the requested SRU tag and SRU justification. Why are you > refusing to follow our process? > > ...Juerg > This is however not a .deb feature at all; nor should it end up in the changelog. I'm not sure there is anything SRUish to justify here. Separately, I want to try to see if doing this build in launchpad out of the full kernel git tree will even work, due to the sheer size of the clone to be done. In the past that would time out. That's why all of our recipes are usually maintained out of tree. I am pondering if this should just be a branch with snapcraft.yaml alone on the ~canonical-kernel-snaps 22 snapcraft recipes repo only, with snapcraft.yaml doing git clone of the pi kernel packaging repo with depth set to 1. > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:22:04 +0900 > Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > > > linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago, > > which is not functional at all. > > > > Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml. > > > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468 > > > > > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel > > snap > > > > snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > > > -- > kernel-team mailing list > kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:35:53 +0000 Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 06:46, Juerg Haefliger > <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > Still missing the requested SRU tag and SRU justification. Why are you > > refusing to follow our process? > > > > ...Juerg > > > > This is however not a .deb feature at all; nor should it end up in the > changelog. I'm not sure there is anything SRUish to justify here. It's a modification of the kernel source code of a stable kernel, so yes it's an SRU change. Whether that is user-visible or not is irrelevant and can be noted in the bug report. People have tooling to scrub the mailing list and missing SRU tags will/might drop patches. Checking the SRU justification in the bug report is one of the review steps. Why is it so hard to follow the documented process and make the life of the people involved easier? ...Juerg > Separately, I want to try to see if doing this build in launchpad out > of the full kernel git tree will even work, due to the sheer size of > the clone to be done. In the past that would time out. That's why all > of our recipes are usually maintained out of tree. I am pondering if > this should just be a branch with snapcraft.yaml alone on the > ~canonical-kernel-snaps 22 snapcraft recipes repo only, with > snapcraft.yaml doing git clone of the pi kernel packaging repo with > depth set to 1. > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:22:04 +0900 > > Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago, > > > which is not functional at all. > > > > > > Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml. > > > > > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468 > > > > > > > > > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel > > > snap > > > > > > snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > > > > > > -- > > kernel-team mailing list > > kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team > > >
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:34 PM Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:35:53 +0000 > Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 06:46, Juerg Haefliger > > <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > Still missing the requested SRU tag and SRU justification. Why are you > > > refusing to follow our process? Because this patch is not related to SRU in the first place. Given the inflexible SRU policy and process, I understood even adding a single snapcraft.yaml is disallowed. > > > > > > ...Juerg > > > > > > > This is however not a .deb feature at all; nor should it end up in the > > changelog. I'm not sure there is anything SRUish to justify here. > > It's a modification of the kernel source code of a stable kernel, so yes it's > an SRU change. Whether that is user-visible or not is irrelevant and > can be noted in the bug report. People have tooling to scrub the > mailing list and missing SRU tags will/might drop patches. Checking the SRU > justification in the bug report is one of the review steps. Why is it so hard > to follow the documented process and make the life of the people involved > easier? > > ...Juerg > > > > Separately, I want to try to see if doing this build in launchpad out > > of the full kernel git tree will even work, due to the sheer size of > > the clone to be done. In the past that would time out. That's why all > > of our recipes are usually maintained out of tree. I am pondering if > > this should just be a branch with snapcraft.yaml alone on the > > ~canonical-kernel-snaps 22 snapcraft recipes repo only, with > > snapcraft.yaml doing git clone of the pi kernel packaging repo with > > depth set to 1. Or, we can create a separate graveyard repository. "Here is a collection of rejected but useful snapcraft.yaml files" You can locally drop it into the corresponding kernel repository. It would be easier to do this for IOT kernels, and having it in-tree is aligned with how snapcraft works. https://bugs.launchpad.net/shiner/+bug/2047831 Anyway, I cannot get consensus for this. Give up. > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:22:04 +0900 > > > Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago, > > > > which is not functional at all. > > > > > > > > Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml. > > > > > > > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml > > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel > > > > snap > > > > > > > > snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > > > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > kernel-team mailing list > > > kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com > > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team > > > > > > >
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:34 PM Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:35:53 +0000 > Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 06:46, Juerg Haefliger > > <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > Still missing the requested SRU tag and SRU justification. Why are you > > > refusing to follow our process? > > > > > > ...Juerg > > > > > > > This is however not a .deb feature at all; nor should it end up in the > > changelog. I'm not sure there is anything SRUish to justify here. > > It's a modification of the kernel source code of a stable kernel, so yes it's > an SRU change. Whether that is user-visible or not is irrelevant and > can be noted in the bug report. People have tooling to scrub the > mailing list and missing SRU tags will/might drop patches. Checking the SRU > justification in the bug report is one of the review steps. Why is it so hard > to follow the documented process and make the life of the people involved > easier? I am not sure if this is related to SRU, but can we regard this patch falls into the category "Simple, obvious and short fixes" ? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelUpdates Is it acceptable if I add the following info to the LP bug tracker? SRU Justification: Impact: The in-tree snapcraft.yaml is stale. It does not produce any functional kernel snap for jammy:linux-raspi. Fix: Replace the stale snapcraft.yaml with a newly implemented one. Testcase: Build a pi-kernel with the command: $ snapcraft --use-lxd --build-for=arm64 or $ snapcraft --use-lxd --build-for=armhf Then, install it to Ubuntu Core 22 running on a raspi board. $ snap install --dangerous <kernel-snap> Please note you need "grade: dangerous" for replacing the kernel from the local file. > ...Juerg > > > > Separately, I want to try to see if doing this build in launchpad out > > of the full kernel git tree will even work, due to the sheer size of > > the clone to be done. In the past that would time out. That's why all > > of our recipes are usually maintained out of tree. I am pondering if > > this should just be a branch with snapcraft.yaml alone on the > > ~canonical-kernel-snaps 22 snapcraft recipes repo only, with > > snapcraft.yaml doing git clone of the pi kernel packaging repo with > > depth set to 1. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:22:04 +0900 > > > Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago, > > > > which is not functional at all. > > > > > > > > Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml. > > > > > > > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml > > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel > > > > snap > > > > > > > > snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > > > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > kernel-team mailing list > > > kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com > > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team > > > > > > >
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:53:19 +0900 Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:34 PM Juerg Haefliger > <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:35:53 +0000 > > Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 06:46, Juerg Haefliger > > > <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Still missing the requested SRU tag and SRU justification. Why are you > > > > refusing to follow our process? > > > > > > > > ...Juerg > > > > > > > > > > This is however not a .deb feature at all; nor should it end up in the > > > changelog. I'm not sure there is anything SRUish to justify here. > > > > It's a modification of the kernel source code of a stable kernel, so yes it's > > an SRU change. Whether that is user-visible or not is irrelevant and > > can be noted in the bug report. People have tooling to scrub the > > mailing list and missing SRU tags will/might drop patches. Checking the SRU > > justification in the bug report is one of the review steps. Why is it so hard > > to follow the documented process and make the life of the people involved > > easier? > > > > > I am not sure if this is related to SRU, but > can we regard this patch falls into the > category "Simple, obvious and short fixes" ? > > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelUpdates > > > > > > > Is it acceptable if I add the following info to > the LP bug tracker? > Yes. ...Juerg > > > SRU Justification: > > > Impact: > The in-tree snapcraft.yaml is stale. It does not produce any > functional kernel snap for jammy:linux-raspi. > > > Fix: > Replace the stale snapcraft.yaml with a newly implemented one. > > > Testcase: > > Build a pi-kernel with the command: > > $ snapcraft --use-lxd --build-for=arm64 > > or > > $ snapcraft --use-lxd --build-for=armhf > > Then, install it to Ubuntu Core 22 running on a raspi board. > > $ snap install --dangerous <kernel-snap> > > Please note you need "grade: dangerous" for replacing > the kernel from the local file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Juerg > > > > > > > Separately, I want to try to see if doing this build in launchpad out > > > of the full kernel git tree will even work, due to the sheer size of > > > the clone to be done. In the past that would time out. That's why all > > > of our recipes are usually maintained out of tree. I am pondering if > > > this should just be a branch with snapcraft.yaml alone on the > > > ~canonical-kernel-snaps 22 snapcraft recipes repo only, with > > > snapcraft.yaml doing git clone of the pi kernel packaging repo with > > > depth set to 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:22:04 +0900 > > > > Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago, > > > > > which is not functional at all. > > > > > > > > > > Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml. > > > > > > > > > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > > > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml > > > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel > > > > > snap > > > > > > > > > > snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > kernel-team mailing list > > > > kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com > > > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team > > > > > > > > > > >
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:42:34 +0900 Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:34 PM Juerg Haefliger > <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:35:53 +0000 > > Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 06:46, Juerg Haefliger > > > <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Still missing the requested SRU tag and SRU justification. Why are you > > > > refusing to follow our process? > > > > Because this patch is not related to SRU in the first place. Yes it is. It targets a stable kernel. > > Given the inflexible SRU policy and process, > I understood even adding a single snapcraft.yaml > is disallowed. Not true. The patch has been rejected so far because you're not following the process, not because of the patch content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Juerg > > > > > > > > > > This is however not a .deb feature at all; nor should it end up in the > > > changelog. I'm not sure there is anything SRUish to justify here. > > > > It's a modification of the kernel source code of a stable kernel, so yes it's > > an SRU change. Whether that is user-visible or not is irrelevant and > > can be noted in the bug report. People have tooling to scrub the > > mailing list and missing SRU tags will/might drop patches. Checking the SRU > > justification in the bug report is one of the review steps. Why is it so hard > > to follow the documented process and make the life of the people involved > > easier? > > > > ...Juerg > > > > > > > Separately, I want to try to see if doing this build in launchpad out > > > of the full kernel git tree will even work, due to the sheer size of > > > the clone to be done. In the past that would time out. That's why all > > > of our recipes are usually maintained out of tree. I am pondering if > > > this should just be a branch with snapcraft.yaml alone on the > > > ~canonical-kernel-snaps 22 snapcraft recipes repo only, with > > > snapcraft.yaml doing git clone of the pi kernel packaging repo with > > > depth set to 1. > > > Or, we can create a separate graveyard repository. > "Here is a collection of rejected but useful snapcraft.yaml files" Feel free to do that and maintain it... > You can locally drop it into the corresponding kernel repository. > > > It would be easier to do this for IOT kernels, > and having it in-tree is aligned with how snapcraft works. > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/shiner/+bug/2047831 > > > > Anyway, I cannot get consensus for this. > Give up. You haven't really tried, have you? All we asked is for you to add the SRU tag to the email subject and the SRU justification to the bug report. That's it. But you haven't done that so far so what do you expect? You can argue all you want we me about whether this is SRU material or not but that's not helpful and just a waste of my (and your) time. You've worked with upstream, you should know how to handle anal review comments. Make the requested changes and the reviewer happy or keep arguing... ...Juerg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:22:04 +0900 > > > > Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago, > > > > > which is not functional at all. > > > > > > > > > > Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml. > > > > > > > > > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > > > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml > > > > > UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel > > > > > snap > > > > > > > > > > snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > kernel-team mailing list > > > > kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com > > > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team > > > > > > > > > > >
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:07 PM Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:42:34 +0900 > Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada@canonical.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:34 PM Juerg Haefliger > > <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:35:53 +0000 > > > Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 06:46, Juerg Haefliger > > > > <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Still missing the requested SRU tag and SRU justification. Why are you > > > > > refusing to follow our process? > > > > > > > > Because this patch is not related to SRU in the first place. > > Yes it is. It targets a stable kernel. > > > > > > Given the inflexible SRU policy and process, > > I understood even adding a single snapcraft.yaml > > is disallowed. > > > Not true. The patch has been rejected so far because you're not following the > process, not because of the patch content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Juerg > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is however not a .deb feature at all; nor should it end up in the > > > > changelog. I'm not sure there is anything SRUish to justify here. > > > > > > It's a modification of the kernel source code of a stable kernel, so yes it's > > > an SRU change. Whether that is user-visible or not is irrelevant and > > > can be noted in the bug report. People have tooling to scrub the > > > mailing list and missing SRU tags will/might drop patches. Checking the SRU > > > justification in the bug report is one of the review steps. Why is it so hard > > > to follow the documented process and make the life of the people involved > > > easier? > > > > > > ...Juerg > > > > > > > > > > Separately, I want to try to see if doing this build in launchpad out > > > > of the full kernel git tree will even work, due to the sheer size of > > > > the clone to be done. In the past that would time out. That's why all > > > > of our recipes are usually maintained out of tree. I am pondering if > > > > this should just be a branch with snapcraft.yaml alone on the > > > > ~canonical-kernel-snaps 22 snapcraft recipes repo only, with > > > > snapcraft.yaml doing git clone of the pi kernel packaging repo with > > > > depth set to 1. > > > > > > Or, we can create a separate graveyard repository. > > "Here is a collection of rejected but useful snapcraft.yaml files" > > Feel free to do that and maintain it... > > > > You can locally drop it into the corresponding kernel repository. > > > > > > It would be easier to do this for IOT kernels, > > and having it in-tree is aligned with how snapcraft works. > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/shiner/+bug/2047831 > > > > > > > > Anyway, I cannot get consensus for this. > > Give up. > > You haven't really tried, have you? All we asked is for you to add the SRU tag > to the email subject and the SRU justification to the bug report. That's it. > But you haven't done that so far so what do you expect? You can argue all you > want we me about whether this is SRU material or not but that's not helpful > and just a waste of my (and your) time. > > You've worked with upstream, you should know how to handle anal review > comments. Make the requested changes and the reviewer happy or keep arguing... > > ...Juerg OK. I completely misunderstood the reason for the rejection. Sorry about that. I will add the info to the LP tracker, and I hope this patch will move forward. Masahiro
linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago, which is not functional at all. Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml. BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468 Masahiro Yamada (2): UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel snap snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)