Is https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelMaintenance still correct?
nigel at tuxonice.net
Tue Mar 30 21:43:18 UTC 2010
On 30/03/10 18:43, Stefan Bader wrote:
> Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>> Hi all.
>> I started a Lucid TuxOnIce tree today.
>> Applying the patch was a no brainer - the vanilla 2.6.32 patch applies
>> without rejects - but I decided to try and do things the really-o
>> truly-o Ubuntu way. I've been following
>> to the letter, as far as I'm able. I'm trying to follow the "Bumping the
>> ABI" instructions, but they seem to be out of date. After fakeroot
>> debian/rules clean, I have:
>> nigel at nigel-laptop:/usr/src/cg-ubuntu-lucid$ git add debian
>> nigel at nigel-laptop:/usr/src/cg-ubuntu-lucid$ git status
>> # On branch combined
>> # Changes to be committed:
>> # (use "git reset HEAD<file>..." to unstage)
>> # new file: debian/changelog
>> # new file: debian/control
>> # new file: debian/control.stub
>> # new file: debian/copyright
>> # new file: debian/rules.d/control.stub.in
> Hi Nigel,
> this looks like you added those files. But those should not. And, yes, the
> document is outdated here for newer releases (Hardy would sill work that way).
> In essence for newer releases a "debian/rules clean" re-creates all those files
> as they are not tracked (kept) in git anymore.
They were added when I ran the Bump ABI script - I guess I did it at the
>> # Untracked files:
>> # (use "git add<file>..." to include in what will be committed)
>> # debian.master/control
>> # debian.master/control.stub
>> # debian.master/d-i/kernel-versions
>> Should it be saying the following?
>> touch debian.master/rules.d/control.stub.in
>> fakeroot debian/rules clean
>> git add debian.master
>> git commit -s -F debian/commit-templates/bumpabi
> For recent series, just
> 1) change the abi number in debian.master/changelog (for the master branch)
> 2) git add debian.master/changelog
> 3) git commit -s -F debian/commit-templates/bumpabi
> 4) fakeroot debian/rules clean (this is just for your build or creating the
Thanks. For a PPA build, is it right to pop the ~tuxonice1 in the
release version while doing step 1?
>> By the way, is there any way to see exactly what the ABI differences
>> are? I know TuxOnIce exports extra symbols, but I don't think any of the
>> existing ones should have changed.
> If you look at the output of a full build, the abi checker is printing some more
> elaborate info about it. Otherwise you would need to resort to compare the abi
> files with something like meld.
Okay; I've seen the info at the end. I was looking for some way of
seeing not just the checksums, but the definitions that were being
compared. I'll try to find some time later to look at how the checksums
are produced - perhaps that will give me a clue.
More information about the kernel-team