Hi, On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 4:24 PM Lucas Kanashiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 14/09/2023 10:20, Andreas Hasenack wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:54 AM Lucas Kanashiro <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 14/09/2023 09:33, Andreas Hasenack wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 8:06 AM Lucas Kanashiro <[email protected]> > >>> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>>> 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. > > +1. > > > > >> 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. > > Does this mean that the addition of those two packages to the exception > is accepted under the condition of adding DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1 to the > docker-buildx DEP-8 test in the next upload? Should I go ahead and
Yes, DEP8 in next upload, and a manual run on this one. And a normal "docker build" (not buildx), unless I missed that one too and it's already being done. > update the wiki page containing the exception? Do you want to do that > instead? Please do it. -- Ubuntu-release mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
