It seems like the SRU template is at LP: #1927755, but the changelog references LP: #1971489.
Also, I am curious about how the SRU team will take this proposal, since it is an issue in the source package, but not in the binary package. This partially fits into the FTBFS case in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Other_safe_cases, where one could read as a suggestion to stage the SRU (block-proposed). Still, this FTBF(reconfigured)S.
Now, if we are modifying this through an SRU, does it mean we support the source modifications as well? If so, should we further test the modified sources (e.g., run autopkgtests on a modified build as well)?
In the other hand, as mentioned in the description, the error is pretty obvious and the fix super straightforward.
This LGTM. I will add a needs info tag so we can fix the bug reference in the changelog.
Thanks, Bryce!
It seems like the SRU template is at LP: #1927755, but the changelog references LP: #1971489.
Also, I am curious about how the SRU team will take this proposal, since it is an issue in the source package, but not in the binary package. This partially fits into the FTBFS case in https:/ /wiki.ubuntu. com/StableRelea seUpdates# Other_safe_ cases, where one could read as a suggestion to stage the SRU (block-proposed). Still, this FTBF(reconfigur ed)S.
Now, if we are modifying this through an SRU, does it mean we support the source modifications as well? If so, should we further test the modified sources (e.g., run autopkgtests on a modified build as well)?
In the other hand, as mentioned in the description, the error is pretty obvious and the fix super straightforward.
This LGTM. I will add a needs info tag so we can fix the bug reference in the changelog.