[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
I've synced 0.11.3-1 from experimental. Thanks! ** Changed in: flatpak (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Released ** Changed in: flatpak (Ubuntu) Assignee: Ken VanDine (ken-vandine) => (unassigned) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
OK, so there is no longer any reason for me to avoid 0.11 in Debian unstable? Thanks for checking. If that's your final answer, this bug can be closed. If you are going with 0.11.x, please consider syncing 0.11.3 (from experimental for now). It is possible that the stable branch resulting from the 0.11.x series (what we have called "0.12" in this discussion) will in fact be labelled 1.0.x, but either way it'll be a stabilized version of 0.11.x, like the difference between GLib 2.55.x and 2.56.x. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
Considering that 0.10.x will most likely not get backported fixes all the way through April 2023 it would be desirable to target 0.12 for 18.04. I confirmed with @sil2100 on IRC that we should be able to SRU 0.12 if we ship 0.11.x now. It would need to reviewed at the time, but assuming it doesn't introduce dependencies and passes regression tests it should be fine. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
I'm asking for some guidance from the SRU team. I'm personally in favor of shipping 0.11.x with a plan to SRU 0.12 in 18.04, as I suspect that isn't all that far off. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
> I'm also trying to get some clarifications around why fedora 26/27 ship 0.10.X vs 0.11.X, I wonder if it was just the simplest thing to do with the document portal move in 0.11.X. If I get any reasoning I'll update this bug. Fedora 26 and 27 started out with flatpak 0.9.x, so they transitioned to 0.10.x in the updates process. Fedora 28 will ship with flatpak 0.11.x, and will likely transition to 0.12.x post-GA if it doesn't release before GA in May. There is a switch in 0.10.4 to disable building the desktop portal in flatpak itself (--disable-document-portal) so that you can use xdg- desktop-portal 0.10's implementation. As the maintainer of the Flatpak stack in Mageia, I shipped 0.9.x in Mageia 6 GA and will be shipping an update to 0.10.x to Mageia 6 shortly. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
@smcv, thanks for the comment that is really useful info. I didn't realize that debian had already split the document portal, this is good to know. I had some further discussions with people about the situation https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/gvFBxNFzwN/ (it's quite long). But interesting points from it are fedora and arch are also on 0.10, with there being some slight confusion about development vs stable series again. I agree that it would be much easier to maintain 0.10.X as you said it has a slower pace with less frequent and smaller changes. (also Ubuntu would be in-sync with debian then? which would be useful for both). I wonder if the route to go down is to use 0.10.X, provide point release updates for that. Then if it is possible to move series (as stated above we'd probably need approval), jump to the next "stable" series, eg 0.12.X. (even if this is via the backports route). However there were some interesting discussions, in the pastebin i linked, if 0.11.X is truely a development branch for 0.12.X could we treat this as Ubuntu having 0.12-alpha and then release to 0.12.0 etc (but as you stated the updates could be huge, frequent and increases the amount to maintain) - so probably not a good idea. I think overall 0.10.X is probably the simpler route to go down, for the reasons smcv has stated above. Are there any other opinions? @Ken do you have any input? I would also like to get some confirmation on if we would be able to ship 0.12.X at a later stage via SRU/backports or similar to bionic. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
> i *think* the even ones are considered LTS releases, not necessarily > that the odd ones are unstable 0.10.x being described as a stable-branch is about the meaning of "stable/unstable" that could be paraphrased as "doesn't change a lot/does change a lot" (just like the Debian stable and unstable suites). It is not about "works/doesn't work". 0.11.x works fine, and (in general) so does Debian unstable - but they are moving targets, with frequent changes, some of them large. If you follow the 0.11.x branch, you have to be prepared for the possibility that the upgrade from (for example) 0.11.3 to 0.11.4 might contain intrusive changes (a large diffstat, new features, perhaps new dependencies, perhaps an elevated risk of regressions). If it does, and it's too large a change for your distribution's stable release managers to be willing to apply it as a SRU, then subsequent releases from the 0.11.x branch would not be eligible for SRU either, even if they fix security vulnerabilities or other major bugs. Your only options would be to backport individual changes, or reconsider the policy for the size of changes that is acceptable; there would probably not be a 0.11.3.1 upstream release that you can import, because upstream will have moved on to later versions already. > starting at 0.11 simplifies the fact that the document-portal was ripped > out and moved to xdg-desktop-portal This is not directly relevant for Debian (and hence Ubuntu, if Ubuntu syncs versions from Debian), because in Debian I already did that transition with the move from Flatpak 0.10.3 to 0.10.4. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
I'm also trying to get some clarifications around why fedora 26/27 ship 0.10.X vs 0.11.X, I wonder if it was just the simplest thing to do with the document portal move in 0.11.X. If I get any reasoning I'll update this bug. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
So I had a short conversation on #flatpak about this (unfortunately Alex is on holiday so can't provide any input at this current time). Hi, I know alex isn't around, but was wondering if anyone else would be able to answer this question. Are the odd series numbers truely development series and should distributions only be shipping even numbers in their stable releases? Eg 0.11 vs 0.10. Should a stable distribution (eg Ubuntu 18.04, FF28, Debian Stable) use 0.10 rather than 0.11 ? If this is the case, and if the distribution allows backports of future versions other than minor point releases, should it then jump to 0.12 after that to follow the "stable" series? (rather than going through 0.11 then 0.12) ahayzen, i *think* the even ones are considered LTS releases, not necessarily that the odd ones are unstable The context here is that currently Ubuntu 18.04 has 0.11.X rather than 0.10.X https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382 I'm considering helping out with maintaining/testing, and trying to find some clarification here TingPing, so if the distro allows us to backport 0.12 later, there isn't any harm in shipping 0.11 ? no there should be no harm, just less backports to that release As the main disadvantage i see of 0.11.X is that support is dropped earlier, so potentially fixes don't go back. Whereas 0.10 being an LTS release would have fixes for longer ahayzen, at the end of the day Alex really is the authority over it, i'm sure if LTS was stuck on 0.11 he'd try to keep it working The way i see it is, if Ubuntu will allow us to upgrade from 0.11 -> 0.12 as a backport, then 0.11 is probably fine. But if they don't, then 0.10 maybe better to go with as Ubuntu 18.04 will be supported for 5 years the ideal case is indeed ubuntu keeping up ahayzen, considering flatpak hasn't even existed 5 years, i think it is unlikely 0.10 will be supported that long anyway TingPing, right, feature freeze/debian import freeze is 1st March :') so before Alex comes back i think right, i'm looking to try and see if flatpak can be allowed to have backports of future versions and then help with the necessary SRUs. It probably won't be flatpak itself that'll be the problem, it would be if any of its depends needed a later version and then break other things TingPing, thanks for the info, this helps clarify some things ahayzen, starting at 0.11 simplifies the fact that the document-portal was ripped out and moved to xdg-desktop-portal right and snappy now/will uses xdg-desktop-portal so guess that'll be kept up to date ;-) cool, so then the concern is just keeping ostree up to date right, there aren't many reverse depends on it https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/DdYSZSvgPd/ keeping gnome-software up to date is also related, but as you say snap uses that too so hmm OK, so now i'm leaning towards 0.11 as that is already in the archive and as you say, isn't unstable/development just not LTS i just don't want it to get "stuck" on some unsupported version that doesn't get fixes :-) ahayzen, at worst it will be a great excuse for it to make it to SRU :P @Ken, Do you think we'd be able to SRU future flatpak versions (eg 0.12) into the bionic archive? With the relevant testing/SRU procedure. As if we can confirm this will be allowed, I think the choice becomes obvious to keep 0.11.X and then "upgrade" to 0.12.X as that is released etc. The problems with this will be the dependencies of flatpak, eg ostree, if those also need upgrading. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
I am not an Ubuntu developer, but my understanding of "new upstream micro-releases" would be that it covers releases with targeted bugfixes, like GLib 2.54.3 to 2.54.4, dbus 1.12.2 to 1.12.4, or flatpak 0.10.3 to 0.10.4. In some cases Flatpak 0.10.x also contains minor new features if they are necessary for forwards compatibility. I have used the Debian equivalent of SRUs (stable updates) to push new micro versions of dbus and flatpak into Debian stable, which is analogous to Ubuntu LTS, and I intend to continue to do so. If you want to benefit from my work in that direction (where it happens to align) please set up your Flatpak version to make that straightforward :-) If your stable release managers would allow making an exception to the usual rules and updating Flatpak across versions that add significant new feature work (0.8 to 0.9+, or 0.9.x to 0.10) then you might as well go ahead with 0.11.x, but definitely talk to them first. What I want to avoid is that Flatpak in bionic is frozen at some random development release for 5 years, and cannot go forward to a subsequent release from the same branch (or a 0.12.x or 1.0.x stable branch) because the changes are considered to be too large, like the way old Ubuntu releases shipped some random version of dbus 1.3.x and weren't allowed to advance to the 1.4.x stable branch. In that scenario, I suspect that the changes allowed to Flatpak by the SRU policy would be *more* restrictive than if you'd just shipped 0.10.x (no targeted fixes for non-security bugs, and no changes to improve forward compatibility, even when upstream consider them important enough to backport into 0.10.x). I also don't think upstream developers with a stable/development branching structure can be expected to provide security support for development branches, so if you got stuck on a development release, backporting security patches would be entirely up to you. It's up to you, and I don't intend to tell you how to run your distro, but I was surprised to see 0.11 land at this point in the release cycle! (If you do want 0.11.x, 0.11.3 is now in experimental and available for sync.) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
Hey, as discussed in IRC on #ubuntu-desktop, I'm happy to help out with any SRUs and maintenance where I can :-) If Ubuntu stays on 0.11 for bionic, assuming there are no regressions the SRU process, I'm right in saying SRU process would allow for bionic users to upgrade to 0.12, or 1.0 at a later date ? Or does it allow only minor releases? (I see parts of the wiki mention "New upstream microreleases") -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
Thanks @smcv! I'm actually inclined to stick with 0.11.x for bionic. I've heard there were complaints in the past about us tracking LTS for flatpak which has evolved much in a short time. I'm also fine with rolling back to 0.10.4 if you think that's best, but 0.11 seems to be working well and we know upstream is responsive. Thoughts? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
Thanks Simon for the work you are doing and for reaching out/making sure we do the right things, assigning to Ken who is going to sort that situation out ** Changed in: flatpak (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => High ** Changed in: flatpak (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Ken VanDine (ken-vandine) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1750382] Re: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic
I'm also packaging 0.11.3 now for experimental, so you might want to sync that. Pull requests welcome at https://salsa.debian.org/debian/flatpak if you have packaging changes that are not inherently Ubuntu-specific. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750382 Title: please roll back to 0.10.x stable branch or confirm use of 0.11.x for bionic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/1750382/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
