Dropping i386 non-PAE as a supported kernel flavour in Precise Pangolin

[Mario Limonciello]

On Nov 15, 2011 3:44 PM, "Jamie Strandboge" <jamie at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 06:53 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Jamie Strandboge [2011-11-14 12:24 -0600]:
> > > What about simply demoting the binary packages for this flavor, but
> > > still build it? We wouldn't have to explicitly test it for
SRUs/security
> > > updates or deal with it with LTS backorts, but it would presumably
still
> > > be in ok shape since we would be actively testing the i686 pae kernel.
> >
> > I know that there is not much of an SRU policy left for the kernel,
> > but that doesn't work. If we expect people to run this kernel, we
> > can't just break it underneath them and render their systems broken.
> > We at least need to check that it still boots on a small number of
> > machines.
> >
> > That approach would work better if the PAE kernel would be a separate
> > source package and thus _not_ get the thousands of changes that get
> > thrown into main kernel in stable updates. But I guess that wouldn't
> > make maintenance any easier?
>
> I am in strong agreement with Steve Langasek on this one (which should
> be evident since he and I proposed the same thing ;). I think it would
> be sufficient to smoke test the kernel to see if it boots. This is way
> better for users than putting the non-PAE source in universe-- it would
> almost certainly rarely get updated.
>
> --
> Jamie Strandboge             | http://www.canonical.com
>
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
>

Would it maybe be sufficient to add some build dependencies on a
virtualization solution and then make sure the kernel loads and what not
after the build finishes?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20111115/356dc9eb/attachment.html>