[Rebase review] Hardy netbook-lpia branch rebase to 2.6.24-28.70

[Stefan Bader]

On 06/11/2010 02:30 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:59:29AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 06/10/2010 03:01 PM, Ike Panhc wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review for the rebase on Hardy netbook-lpia branch including lbm/lrm/lum.
>>> The git tree is at the following place:
>>>
>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ikepanhc/hardy-kernel/.git branch netbook-lpia and
>>> tag NBK-Ubuntu-2.6.24-28.70netbook01
>>>
>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ikepanhc/hardy-lbm/.git branch netbook-lpia and
>>> tag NBK-Ubuntu-2.6.24-28.70netbook01
>>>
>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ikepanhc/hardy-lrm/.git branch netbook-lpia and
>>> tag NBK-Ubuntu-2.6.24.25-28.1netbook01
>>>
>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ikepanhc/hardy-lum/.git branch netbook-lpia and
>>> tag NBK-Ubuntu-2.6.24-28.70netbook01
>>>
>>>
>>> What has been done list below.
>>>
>>> For Hardy kernel:
>>>  * Rebase to tag Ubuntu-2.6.24-28.70
>>>  * Disable LGUEST_GUEST for two reason: we dont need it and build failed on it.
>>>  * Remove debian/control and debian/control.stub: Those are auto-generated files
>>
>> The last step is not wrong but unusual compared to the master tree. Usually we
>> carry those files there and update them whenever we make an abi bump.
>> You can go forward and remove them, but just need to keep in mind that you will
>> need to call debian/rules clean now before you create source packages.
>>
>> I try to get you a better review, but it might get tomorrow while I am on the train.
> 
> I think I suggested he rip out the built files as he had been bitten by
> not updating them.  As we have ripped them out of all the other trees
> there seems little chance of confusion.  Perhaps we should do the same
> control-sectomy on the master branch too.
> 
> -apw

I see that this makes the behaviour more like later releases. And maybe it works
just ok (but then you should rip out kernel-versions next). But it feels for an
unexplainable reason uneasy to have some parts removed to give similar behaviour
and possibly have other pitfalls. And maybe confuse people being used to
re-commit those files for Hardy. But that might be overcautious.

Stefan