linux-mvl-dove_2.6.31-0.2_source.changes rejected

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at
Wed Aug 19 17:22:22 BST 2009

Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> I'm rejecting the linux-mvl-dove package from the NEW queue because of this:
>  Package: linux-mvl-dove-libc-dev
>  Architecture: armel
>  Conflicts: libc6-dev (<< 2.3.2.ds1-6), libc6.1-dev (<< 2.3.2.ds1-6), dvb-dev (<< 1.0.1-6), linux-mvl-dove-kernel-headers
>  Replaces: libc6-dev (<< 2.3.2.ds1-6), libc6.1-dev (<< 2.3.2.ds1-6), dvb-dev (<< 1.0.1-6), linux-mvl-dove-kernel-headers, libdrm-dev
>  #Provides: linux-mvl-dove-kernel-headers
>  Description: linux-mvl-dove Kernel Headers for development
>   This package provides headers from the linux-mvl-dove kernel. These
>   headers are used by the installed headers for GNU glibc and other system
>   libraries. They are NOT meant to be used to build third-party modules
>   for your kernel. Use linux-mvl-dove-headers-* packages for that.
> 'linux-libc-dev' is the one and only package name of this sort that we
> should have in the archive.  It is the package that fulfills the libc6-dev
> package's dependencies, and there should be one and only one of this package
> per architecture - we do not need or want per-flavor versions of this
> package.
> Please correct this and reupload.

Even though its still in debian/control, the build doesn't actually
produce a libc-dev package (though you wouldn' know that until its too
late). I'll strip it out of the control file for the next upload.

> For a number of reasons, I also think this package name is wrong:
>   Package: linux-mvl-dove-headers-2.6.31-0-dove
> Given that all kernel flavor names will always be unique within an
> architecture (they must be since the kernel image packages are named
> linux-image-$kvers-$abi-$flavor), I believe it's preferable to name all of
> the header packages linux-headers-$kvers-$abi-$flavor as well regardless of
> which source package they come from.  Oliver has noted in discussion that
> there is code in livecd-rootfs that looks for the standard package name
> pattern linux-headers-2*:
>      chroot ${ROOT} dpkg -l linux-headers-2\* | grep ^i | awk '{print $2}' \
>          > livecd.${FSS}.manifest-headers
> So these linux-mvl-dove-headers-* packages won't match the pattern and will
> be missed.
> Unlike the linux-libc-dev issue, I don't think this part is a blocker for
> acceptance into the archive, but I do think it should be changed when you
> have a chance.
> Thanks,

I was concerned about package name collisions across the various kernels
if I chose a generic naming scheme. However, I guess the solution is to
start with an ABI number that is unlikely to collide with any other
kernels. Won't it be a bit confusing to see multiple headers packages
that differ _only_ in the ABI number? The linux-headers flavour packages
will be obvious, but the *_all* packages will all look the same.


Tim Gardner tim.gardner at

More information about the ubuntu-archive mailing list