FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Kernel Team

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-24-2010, 03:56 PM
Leann Ogasawara
 
Default Binary demotions of kernel packages

Hi All,

Matthias (doko) has inquired about binary demotions of kernel packages:

http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.txt

The following link also has additional information:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArchiveAdministration#Component Mismatches and Changing Overrides

Source and binary demotions to universe
---------------------------------------
* linux-linaro - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
comments?

Source only demotions to universe
---------------------------------
* linux-meta-linaro - Again I suspect we don't want this demoted to
universe, comments?

Binary only demotions to universe
---------------------------------
* linux-backports-modules-2.6.35 - lbm has never been seeded but
shouldn't be demoted to universe.
* linux-meta (lbm meta packages) - Again, shouldn't be demoted to
universe
* linux-mvl-dove - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
comments?
* linux-ti-omap4 - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
comments?

Thanks,
Leann


--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 09-24-2010, 05:04 PM
Oliver Grawert
 
Default Binary demotions of kernel packages

hi,
Am Freitag, den 24.09.2010, 08:56 -0700 schrieb Leann Ogasawara:
> * linux-mvl-dove - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
> comments?
someone missed to upload a new meta after uploading a new kernel ...
there is an ABI skew, please someone upload linux-mvl-dove

> * linux-ti-omap4 - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
> comments?
this was a seed mistmatch (we dont use the installer on our preinstalled
images so i dont really see such issues unless they show up one the
problems page) i'm to blame here, seed is fixed and it should vanish
from the page soon.

ciao
oli
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 09-24-2010, 05:08 PM
Oliver Grawert
 
Default Binary demotions of kernel packages

hi,
Am Freitag, den 24.09.2010, 19:04 +0200 schrieb Oliver Grawert:

> there is an ABI skew, please someone upload linux-mvl-dove
erm ... that was supposed to read linux-meta-mvl-dove indeed, sorry ...

ciao
oli

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 09-27-2010, 02:00 PM
Tim Gardner
 
Default Binary demotions of kernel packages

On 09/24/2010 09:56 AM, Leann Ogasawara wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Matthias (doko) has inquired about binary demotions of kernel packages:
>
> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.txt
>
> The following link also has additional information:
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArchiveAdministration#Component Mismatches and Changing Overrides
>
> Source and binary demotions to universe
> ---------------------------------------
> * linux-linaro - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
> comments?
>
> Source only demotions to universe
> ---------------------------------
> * linux-meta-linaro - Again I suspect we don't want this demoted to
> universe, comments?
>
> Binary only demotions to universe
> ---------------------------------
> * linux-backports-modules-2.6.35 - lbm has never been seeded but
> shouldn't be demoted to universe.
> * linux-meta (lbm meta packages) - Again, shouldn't be demoted to
> universe
> * linux-mvl-dove - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
> comments?
> * linux-ti-omap4 - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
> comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Leann
>
>

The packages that are directly maintained by the kernel team should all
be in main. I suspect linux-linaro _should_ be in universe since it is
not strictly subject to SRU criteria and it is not maintained by the
kernel team.

Steve, Loic - do you have a strong opinion about this?

rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 09-27-2010, 02:11 PM
Loc Minier
 
Default Binary demotions of kernel packages

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010, Tim Gardner wrote:
> The packages that are directly maintained by the kernel team should
> all be in main. I suspect linux-linaro _should_ be in universe since
> it is not strictly subject to SRU criteria and it is not maintained
> by the kernel team.

This is how I felt as well, but I recall some people argued in favor of
having linux-linaro in main; not sure why anymore. It might have been
asac, Cc:ing him.

(I had also passed this demotion proposal to Jamie and John, but I'm
not sure they got the chance to comment yet.)

--
Loc Minier

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 09-27-2010, 02:47 PM
Alexander Sack
 
Default Binary demotions of kernel packages

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Loc Minier <loic.minier@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> *This is how I felt as well, but I recall some people argued in favor of
> *having linux-linaro in main; not sure why anymore. *It might have been
> *asac, Cc:ing him.
>
> *(I had also passed this demotion proposal to Jamie and John, but I'm
> *not sure they got the chance to comment yet.)

I don't remember having requested main inclusion for our kernels.
Might be that we said it might be worthwhile for images that otherwise
just need main; or maybe canonical ARM team (CCed ogra) was trying to
use our kernel for omap3?

Anyway, for this linaro cycle, feel free to go ahead and demote.


--

*- Alexander

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 09-27-2010, 05:42 PM
Steve Langasek
 
Default Binary demotions of kernel packages

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 08:00:12AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 09/24/2010 09:56 AM, Leann Ogasawara wrote:
> >Hi All,

> >Matthias (doko) has inquired about binary demotions of kernel packages:

> >http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.txt

> >The following link also has additional information:

> >https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArchiveAdministration#Component Mismatches and Changing Overrides

> >Source and binary demotions to universe
> >---------------------------------------
> > * linux-linaro - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
> >comments?

> >Source only demotions to universe
> >---------------------------------
> > * linux-meta-linaro - Again I suspect we don't want this demoted to
> >universe, comments?

> >Binary only demotions to universe
> >---------------------------------
> > * linux-backports-modules-2.6.35 - lbm has never been seeded but
> >shouldn't be demoted to universe.
> > * linux-meta (lbm meta packages) - Again, shouldn't be demoted to
> >universe
> > * linux-mvl-dove - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
> >comments?
> > * linux-ti-omap4 - I suspect we don't want this demoted to universe,
> >comments?

> The packages that are directly maintained by the kernel team should
> all be in main. I suspect linux-linaro _should_ be in universe since
> it is not strictly subject to SRU criteria and it is not maintained
> by the kernel team.

> Steve, Loic - do you have a strong opinion about this?

I had already told Matthias that this should be demoted. It's not used in
any official Ubuntu images for this cycle, which is the criterion that
should drive main inclusion. "Linaro uses it" should not by itself be a
driver for a difference in the Canonical support status of a package.

We would certainly appreciate the Ubuntu kernel team keeping linux-linaro on
the list of kernels for inclusion in maverick-security because I expect it's
much more efficient for these updates to be prepared together across the
multiple kernel packages; but Linaro itself has not committed to providing
security support for their 10.11 release so if this doesn't fit in your
plans for security updates, don't sweat it.

Anyway, the Linaro kernel packages have been demoted to universe now thanks
to Colin.

Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 09-28-2010, 01:42 PM
Tim Gardner
 
Default Binary demotions of kernel packages

On 09/27/2010 11:42 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> We would certainly appreciate the Ubuntu kernel team keeping linux-linaro on
> the list of kernels for inclusion in maverick-security because I expect it's
> much more efficient for these updates to be prepared together across the
> multiple kernel packages; but Linaro itself has not committed to providing
> security support for their 10.11 release so if this doesn't fit in your
> plans for security updates, don't sweat it.
>

I have been purposely maintaining a hands-off attitude on the Linaro
kernel since I've been receiving pull requests from John Rigby. Since I
don't really follow the Linaro release cycle all that closely, I think
its best to leave maintenance in John's capable hands. Besides, the
stable kernel team is already buried.

rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org