[raring-meta] Update linux-crashdump dependencies

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
Wed Feb 6 15:32:43 UTC 2013


On 02/06/2013 07:58 AM, Bouchard Louis wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> Le 06/02/2013 15:37, Tim Gardner a écrit :
>> I believe you should go through the Main Inclusion Request formality for
>> kdump-tools first. This gives the security team a chance to look at the
>> package to make sure its not going to disclose any sensitive
>> information, a particularly important action given the nature of this
>> package.
>>
>> rtg
> 
> I was going to do just this, but was told by some core-dev that it was
> not required :
> 
>> 16:25 < caribou> what is the process to get a package (kdump-tools) in main when its source package (makedumpfile) is already in main ?
>> 16:26 < caribou> the MIR wiki page says that a MIR is not required for those
>> 16:28 < seb128> caribou, get something in main to (build-)depends on or recommends it
>> 16:28 < pitti> caribou: by and large, upload something to main which depends on it
>> 16:28 < cjwatson> or get a core-dev to seed it somewhere if it should be a top-level item
>> 16:29 < caribou> seb128: pitti cjwatson thanks for the tips
> 
> The MIR was already done for the source package (makedumpfile in this
> context) which is apparently why another MIR was not required.
> 
> I don't mind going at it once more though.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> ...Louis
> 

Ah, I didn't realize that kdump-tools was a binary, not a source
package, and is in fact produced from the makedumpfile source package
which is already in main. Therefore, what Martin and Colin suggest,
e.g., add kdump-tools as a dependency, makes perfect sense.

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




More information about the kernel-team mailing list