Comment 21 for bug 1720126

On 17.10.2017 [08:56:17 -0000], Jan Gutter wrote:
> @nacc I built from source to verify that the one-liner is directly
> responsible for fixing and breaking the issue (inherent paranoia). I did
> test with the binaries and they worked.

Ah ok, yeah -- I guess that's reasonable, and is a good preemptive test,
but given that it needs to be backported to a different release, feels a
bit like busywork (the same time could have been spent building it for
xenial :)

> Apologies, I'm unfamiliar with the Ubuntu SRU process as you can
> probably see. What exactly is an "MP" and how would one go about to
> propose one?

MP = Merge Proposal. Roughly like GitHub's Pull Requests (PR), except
less formal with Git (bzr I think is somewhat more first-class in
Launchpad).

> I'm aware of the need of testing bugfixes like these, I'm not familiar
> with your release pipeline, however.

http://www.justgohome.co.uk/blog/2017/07/developing-ubuntu-using-git.html

may help a bit. Roughly:

$ sudo snap install --classic git-ubuntu
$ git ubuntu clone iproute2
$ cd iproute2
$ ... make and commit changes
$ git ubuntu submit

Now, the issue is that middle bit, where you have to know a bit about
source packaging. That is, simply cherry-picking the upstream/Debian fix
is not quite right, as you need to change it into a Quilt patch and then
insert a changelog entry.

We are currently developing a fix for that so you can just do a

$ git ubuntu remote add debian
$ git cherry-pick 72b365e83
$ git ubuntu build-source

And it should spit out a commit that has the quiltify'd and
changelogify'd result that you can use as a base or to submit.

Feel free to find me on IRC if you want some more pointers.

In the meanwhile, I'll try and look at Monique's debdiffs this week.

-Nish