Lucid meta in pre-proposed

Tim Gardner 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.
>>
>> -apw
>
> 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.
>
> -Stefan

Looks like its there now. Thanks.

-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com



More information about the kernel-team mailing list