On Nov 15, 2011 3:44 PM, "Jamie Strandboge" <<a href="mailto:jamie@canonical.com">jamie@canonical.com</a>> 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 | <a href="http://www.canonical.com">http://www.canonical.com</a> > > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > <a href="mailto:ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com</a> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel</a> > 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?