e) Questing/Noble/Jammy uploads, d/changelog

Why are you changing these old/past changelog entries? Is it a process
thing? I see something similar happened in the previous SRU.

This is a diff of d/changelog between what is currently in questing, and
your questing upload, but it's similar in jammy and noble also:

```diff
@@ -9,8 +126,9 @@ snapd (2.74.1+ubuntu25.10.4) questing; urgency=medium
 
  -- Ernest Lotter <[email protected]>  Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:44:00 
+0200
 
-snapd (2.74.1+ubuntu25.10) questing; urgency=medium
+snapd (2.74.1) xenial; urgency=medium
 
+  * New upstream release, LP: #2138629
     - FDE: measure DeployedMode and AuditMode variables if they appear
       as disabled in the event log to avoid a potential reseal-failure
       boot loop
@@ -29,8 +147,9 @@ snapd (2.74.1+ubuntu25.10) questing; urgency=medium
 
  -- Ernest Lotter <[email protected]>  Thu, 12 Feb 2026 21:27:23 
+0200
 
-snapd (2.74+ubuntu25.10) questing; urgency=medium
+snapd (2.74) xenial; urgency=medium
 
+  * New upstream release, LP: #2138629
     - FDE: use new activation API from secboot
     - FDE: use activation API also with non keydata keys
     - FDE: ignore internal recovery key expiration during install
@@ -136,7 +255,7 @@ snapd (2.74+ubuntu25.10) questing; urgency=medium
 
  -- Ernest Lotter <[email protected]>  Tue, 20 Jan 2026 18:54:17 
+0200
 
-snapd (2.73+ubuntu25.10) questing; urgency=medium
+snapd (2.73) xenial; urgency=medium
 
   * New upstream release, LP: #2132084
     - FDE: do not save incomplete FDE state when resealing was skipped
```


f) Vendoring differences betweem questing and resolute

When I compare the questing and resolute uploads, I see some vendoring
differences, was that on purpose, or just a side effect of when and how
the source tarball was prepared, or do questing and resolute really have
different requirements for secboot and go-tpm2?

For example:
--- a/go.mod (questing)
+++ b/go.mod (resolute)
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ require (
        github.com/bmatcuk/doublestar/v4 v4.6.1
        github.com/canonical/go-efilib v1.7.0
        github.com/canonical/go-sp800.90a-drbg 
v0.0.0-20210314144037-6eeb1040d6c3 // indirect
-       github.com/canonical/go-tpm2 v1.13.0
+       github.com/canonical/go-tpm2 v1.15.0
        github.com/coreos/go-systemd v0.0.0-20191104093116-d3cd4ed1dbcf
        github.com/godbus/dbus/v5 v5.1.0
        github.com/gorilla/mux v1.8.0
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ require (
        github.com/mvo5/libseccomp-golang v0.9.1-0.20180308152521-f4de83b52afb 
// old trusty builds only
        github.com/seccomp/libseccomp-golang 
v0.9.2-0.20220502024300-f57e1d55ea18
        github.com/snapcore/go-gettext v0.0.0-20191107141714-82bbea49e785
-       github.com/snapcore/secboot v0.0.0-20260302105957-77bc2457cc76
+       github.com/snapcore/secboot v0.0.0-20260410084611-3f8b98c2db70
        golang.org/x/crypto v0.23.0
        golang.org/x/net v0.21.0 // indirect
        golang.org/x/sync v0.8.0

Actually, now that I check, I see this d/changelog entry in RESOLUTE:

snapd (2.75+ubuntu26.04.2) resolute; urgency=medium

    - FDE: run early boot check only once per boot
    - FDE: update secboot to revision 77bc2457cc76
...

But resolute's go.mod has:

github.com/snapcore/secboot v0.0.0-20260410084611-3f8b98c2db70

Which agrees with what the diff above is showing. So secboot in resolute
was actually not updated?

From an SRU perspective, I'm just making sure these changes are intended
as they are. When I see an SRU where the same version is being pushed to
all ubuntu releases, it's standard practice to check that all releases
are getting the same thing, bar expected deviations. This might be such
an expected deviation.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2143882

Title:
  [SRU] 2.75.2

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapd/+bug/2143882/+subscriptions


-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to