Include docker-{buildx,compose-v2} to the Docker.io group exception

[Lucas Kanashiro]

Hi Andreas,

On 13/09/2023 11:58, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 6:14 PM Lucas Kanashiro <kanashiro at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> Hi SRU team,
>>
>> I'd like to ask for an update of the Docker.io group SRU exception [1]
>> to also include the two new Docker CLI plugins that are now in the
>> archive (Mantic):
>>
>> - docker-buildx
>> - docker-compose-v2
> Sorry for taking to long to get to this request.

No problem.

>> They are self contained (no reverse dependencies). They will also
>> considerably improve the experience of our Docker users across all
>> releases. Those 2 new packages are really tightened to the Docker
>> version we have and it would be great to keep it consistent everywhere.
>>
>> My idea is to not allow the backport of versions .0 of those packages as
>> we do with docker.io-app.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DockerUpdates
> Approved on the condition that we have a few new DEP8 tests. I think
> this is importand because, per SRU exception[1] for this group of
> packages, DEP8 tests are basically the only tests performed.

Do you mean the current DEP-8 tests are not enough?

> I'm thinking:
> a) one for the build functionality with DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1, which is
> what will exercise the docker-buildx plugin at a minimum, and verify
> the recent regression[2]. A simple Dockerfile consisting only of "FROM
> ubuntu:latest" should suffice to begin with, as that would have caught
> the regression[1].

The DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1 option is not currently used in the test, so yes, 
we could add it due to this regression. Could we move on with the 
backports now and I add it in the next upload/backport?

I'd like to mention that the basic features are already tested in the 
smoke test we have.

> b) compose. We can start with a smoke test showing that the plugin is
> recognized, because right not it isn't (unless I'm doing something
> wrong. After I install bin:docker-compose, I don't see it in the
> output of "docker info", nor is the "docker compose" command
> recognized. Just "docker-compose" (in lunar).

We do have a smoke test. The correct binary package is 
docker-compose-v2, docker-compose is the old version.

> Does that sound reasonable?

Could you check the comments above and let me know the next steps the 
SRU team wants me to take?

Thanks for the review!

-- 
Lucas Kanashiro