Questions about LTS backports to Hardy

[Tim Gardner]

Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:34:48AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> I'm working on backporting recent kernels to LTS releases such as Hardy.
>>
>> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-karmic-new-kernel-on-lts
>>
>> I'm wondering if I should create a new Hardy meta package, e.g.,
>> linux-meta-2.6.28_2.6.28* ?  The package that users would be instructed
>> to install would then be of the form:
>>
>> linux-image-server-2.6.28_2.6.28*${arch}.deb
>>
>> which would obviously pull in the dependent kernel packages.
> 
> I think that makes sense, yes. You might want to be a bit careful about
> the couple of binary packages that are -2.6.28 rather than
> -2.6.28-ABI-FLAVOUR, but that are built by the main kernel source
> package - IIRC linux-doc-2.6.28 and linux-source-2.6.28 fall into this
> category. Just leaving those out of linux-meta-2.6.28 would be good
> enough.
> 

Your comment about binary packages is in reference to linux-meta,
correct? I'll take some care to make sure there are no conflicts with
existing Hardy meta packages.

Your comment did get me to thinking about the binary packages generated
by the kernel. What do you suggest I do about linux-libc-dev, which will
supersede an existing Hardy package? Shall I rename it, or just not
produce it? I think it ought to be superfluous.

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