ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 07:15:44PM -0500, Christopher M. Penalver wrote:
> Daniel Letzeisen, thanks for your e-mail, and your trying to help with
> triaging linux (Ubuntu) bugs. Regarding your comments:
> 
> >" About a week ago, Ubuntu released kernel 2.6.32-61 for Lucid/10.04
> >Server as a security fix to this bug:
> >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1326367
> >Unfortunately, the fix caused a regression, which is correctly
> >documented and tagged by an Ubuntu dev here:
> >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327300 The
> >regression caused a variety of symptoms such as hanging and loss of
> >sound (there are a couple other bugs, but I don't have the link at
> >the moment):
> >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327220
> >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327014
> >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1328360
> >Christopher Penalver quickly marked those bugs as "Won't Fix" and
> >said Lucid Desktop wasn't supported anymore (even though the kernel
> >is part of the Server package and an update had just been pushed)."
> 
> This is because all the bugs you are marking duplicates of 1327220
> aren't using Lucid Server, but Lucid Desktop, which is EoL as of
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases . As a member of Ubuntu Bug Control
> you should have already been keenly aware of this link. However, if
> there has been a change in the End of Life for Lucid Desktop I've not
> been made aware of, I'll be more than happy to reverse the Status and
> triage appropriately.

How did you make the determination that a system is a 10.04 Server or a
10.04 Desktop? There is no easy way to make that distinction as far as I
know.

Additionally, the security team publishes a list of 5 year supported
packages[1] found at their FAQ[2]. Any package in that list is supported
and if there is a regression in that package due to a security update it
should be fixed. Subsequently, the distinction between a Server and a
Desktop seems rather moot, the support is provided on a per package
basis not installation type.

> >"Worse, when I tried to mark those bugs as a duplicate of 1327300, he
> >removed my duplicate links (twice), because he was worried it might
> >prove his flimsy excuse to close the bugs as wrong."
> 
> Please leave the conjecture off this mailing list.
> 
> "The users deserve to know that their problems are caused by the
> recent kernel update, and that a fixed kernel is in the lucid-proposed
> repo."
> 
> Agreed. However, the users are in a dangerous position as already
> e-mailed to you by Steve Langasek (Canonical) in
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327014/comments/13
> , which would support my initial Status as noted earlier to you in
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327014/comments/8
> that you decided to override.

While the users are in a dangerous position, that doesn't make the
regression due to a security update a "Won't Fix" bug. That regression
should be and is still being address. If I were working on these bugs I
would add a comment regarding 10.04 desktop packages being End of Life
while marking them as a duplicate of bug 1327300 (if they are for
certain a duplicate). If not then a comment about testing the new kernel
from -proposed, while mentioning End of Life, and a status of Incomplete
seems appropriate.


[1] https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/ubuntu-cve-tracker/master/view/head:/lucid-supported.txt
[2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ#Official%20Support

--
Brian Murray
Ubuntu Bug Master

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature