Lucid meta in pre-proposed
tim.gardner at canonical.com
Fri Oct 1 13:45:23 BST 2010
On 10/01/2010 01:46 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 09:33 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 09:42:42PM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>> Is there a reason why we can't have a Lucid meta package in
>>> pre-proposed? Otherwise its difficult to track ABI jumps in the
>>> Lucid pre-proposed kernel. If we can't have 2 packages of the same
>>> name in 2 release pockets, then we'll likely have to have a separate
>>> pre-proposed PPA for each release.
>> Normally there should be one if we handle linux-meta correctly, but
>> someone needs to add the ABI bump into meta branch UNRELEASED. I
>> suspect we could handle it automatically with some work.
> I must take the blame of pointing it out to people that there *should* be a meta
> package for things but not following up with them on doing it or make someone do.
Looks like its there now. Thanks.
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
More information about the kernel-team