Skia made us aware that ubuntu-cuda-packaging-tools needs to be the first and built + published before the rest, starting on that one... which is gladly also fairly trivial.
- Copyright - no objection, also got the default license right [1], not everyone does :-) - source Namespace - fine, especially with the ubuntu- in front of it - bin Namespace - I raised an eyebrow by seeing only one binary and then not matching the source name, but that is fine. I can see a future where more than ubuntu-cuda-integrity-tests lands in ubuntu-cuda-packaging-tools - description, version, other basics all LGTM Ok, that was an easy start - I guess it was the last easy one. Accepting it - and in a bit the binaries too to then allow the others to use it for testing as they get accepted. [1]: https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/maintainers/AA/aa-new- review/#ensuring-compliance-with-the-software-license P.S: I have some thoughts about the testing as you replicate the same snippet of d/t/control over all other packages. IIRC there was a way to express that here, so the tests run on the same combination but you would only be maintaining one d/t/control here. Sadly while I'm sure I've seen this I didn't find an example so consider this theoretical for now. Was it as easy as mentioning it here in d/t/control as dependency - sorry I'm not sure yet. consider it food fur further investigation thought. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2141744 Title: [needs-packaging] cuda-13-1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/2141744/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
