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

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:22:22AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> > '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.

Ok, thanks.

> > 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.

> 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.

> linux-headers-2.6.31-1_2.6.31-1.3_all.deb
> linux-headers-2.6.31-10_2.6.31-10.3_all.deb

So with regards to these packages, I don't think the armel flavors should be
depending on them or referencing them at all.  The reason the
"linux-headers-$kvers-$abi" packages are there is to avoid having to
duplicate its contents between flavors; but with one kernel flavor per
source package in the case of armel, there isn't actually anything to share.
So merging all the contents into a single
"linux-headers-$kvers-$abi-$flavor" package should address this.

But of course that's more work than just renaming the package, so I'm in no
hurry on this.  As I said, I don't consider this one a blocker for clearing
NEW.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org