Polishing and updating the outdated ubuntu-cloud packageset

[Robie Basak]

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 07:55:24PM +0530, Utkarsh Gupta wrote:
> Hi Robie,
> 
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 7:43 PM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > > ubuntu-cloud packageset:
> > > https://ubuntu-archive-team.ubuntu.com/packagesets/oracular/ubuntu-cloud
> >
> > The pacakgeset description is:
> >
> > > Packages required to create, bootstrap, use or configure Ubuntu Cloud
> > > images and their derivatives.
> >
> > Presumably the wording is intended to be specific to cloud images (eg.
> > openssh is required to "use" a cloud image but presumably wasn't
> > intended to be included in that description).
> >
> > Following that, all your proposed additions make sense. I'm not sure
> > about some of the packages you proposed to drop but it looks like there
> > are currently no uploaders so I guess that's OK.
> 
> Many thanks for the +1. I'd like to also make these changes for other
> stable releases as well - Noble, Mantic, Jammy, and Focal. Hope that's
> okay, too. :)

+1

> And yes, we decided to drop the packages that:
> a) we don't need anymore as they're not something we support anymore.
> b) haven't been in the archive for a few stable releases.
> c) might have a strong or dedicated ownership by another team or squad
> (for eg: cloud-init).
> 
> (c) also raises the bar to get the packageset rights (esp. when it's
> an important package like cloud-init, openssh, et al) and we don't see
> any benefit in that when there are dedicated teams already for the
> said packages. If we ever need those, we might consider doing a PPU or
> something, too, but for now, I don't think we'd like to have them in
> the packageset for the above reasons.
> 
> > Would it be an idea to adjust the description to be more specific
> > though, to stop us flapping if we're asked to re-add some of these
> > packages that appear to match the description currently?
> 
> Right, we had a discussion on trying to re-word this in the best
> possible way to reflect the above. One of the suggestions was -
> "Packages that are tightly coupled to public cloud images and/or their
> creation or maintenance"
> 
> Does that make things a bit better? D'you have recommendations,
> suggestions, et al?

I'm not sure what to suggest here. The only reason I ask is that it's
normal for someone to randomly approach the DMB and ask for some package
to be added to a packageset, and our only criteria to make that decision
is to consider the packageset description to understand the intent of
the DMB having approved uploaders to that packageset previously. So if
we're removing packages that do appear to meet the description, then
what's to stop them being re-added if requested again?

I guess the description can't be perfect, so I don't mind what you
decide you want to do exactly, but I bring it up only because it seems
weird to remove packages that arguably meet the description. I suggest
that you go with whatever you consider to be the best suggestion given
the above (and yours above seems fine), let us know what you decided,
change the packageset description and then call it done unless someone
objects :)

Robie
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/attachments/20240528/84ffd74b/attachment.sig>