the clean target still expects to find matching kernel headers to be
installed ('make clean mrproper'), that'd need to be fixed IMO
also the ABI number probably should be pulled from the version string
instead of expecting a changelog entry of certain format.
--
You received this bug notificatio
Andy, Timo, et al, do you have any more comments on the packages? With
the input from you, the packages have been updated and we think they are
now in good shape.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.n
On 24 March 2016 at 17:00, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
> Also have you considered how this will work with LTSs and specifically
> with multiple lts backport kernels into the same release.
I think we have two options:
1. Do not provide linux-backports to LTS kernels; or
2. Introduce new packages by
The link in #8 is now obsolete, please check https://launchpad.net
/~linux-backports-team/+archive/ubuntu/devel/ now, thanks!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1546967
Title:
[FFe] [nee
@Andy:
Hi, we've made the change according to the suggestion. New ppa can be found
here:
https://launchpad.net/~linux-backports-team/+archive/ubuntu/develope
It's still a temporary ppa, and if it meets the requirement we will put
it to our staging ppa.
--
You received this bug notification beca
I note that the binary packages produced by the source backports are all
linux-backports already so there is an inconsistancy here also
suggesting the name be linux-backports. Also the binary packages are
necessarily versioned so that more than one version can be installed.
This brings them very m
I would agree that backports is too generic. As your meta package is
linux-backports-meta the logical name is linux-backports to match. Also
as this package is locked to the specific version of the kernel against
which it builds I would recommend you version the package in line with
the kernel to
@Timo:
> 'backports' is a generic name
We want to hear opinions from release team as well, if release team
think it's ok we tend not to change it at the last minute
> empty d/docs file
We have changelog.gz and copyright installed to /usr/share/doc, did you
mean we need also fill d/docs file spec
Could someone from release team comment on these new packages?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1546967
Title:
[FFe] [needs-packaging] linux backports and related meta packages
To mana
@Phid, please fix according to Timo's comment asap.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1546967
Title:
[FFe] [needs-packaging] linux backports and related meta packages
To manage notifica
** Changed in: backports
Assignee: (unassigned) => Phidias (phidias-chiang)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1546967
Title:
[FFe] [needs-packaging] linux backports and related meta
some comments:
- 'backports' is a generic name, so even though upstream uses that for the
tarball I think the source package should be named 'linux-backports' (and the
lp project too, maybe too late for that :)
- empty d/docs file
- can't build a source package by just bumping the abi.. claims I
(subscribe ubuntu-release since we have passed feature freeze for 16.04
unfortunately)
** Summary changed:
- [needs-packaging] linux backports and related meta packages
+ [FFe] [needs-packaging] linux backports and related meta packages
** Changed in: backports
Importance: Undecided => High
13 matches
Mail list logo
