| Message ID | 20190212135051.24890-1-apw@canonical.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | fixes for signed-only | expand |
On 2/12/19 2:50 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > Following this email is a configuration update for trusty/linux-lts-xenial which > fixes flavour-control.stub to match the rather confusing delta we carry in all lts backports. > > At the bottom of this email are two pull requests for trusty/linux-signed-lts-xenial > and trusty/linux-meta-lts-xenial. > > Proposing these to fix the current cycle. > > -apw > > Andy Whitcroft (1): > UBUNTU: [Config] linux-headers common package is in the linux > namespace > > debian.xenial/control.d/flavour-control.stub | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > Difficult to review it all in a short time, but we can do some install tests to make sure the packages are being produced correctly. Acked-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza <kleber.souza@canonical.com>
On 12.02.19 14:50, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > Following this email is a configuration update for trusty/linux-lts-xenial which > fixes flavour-control.stub to match the rather confusing delta we carry in all lts backports. > > At the bottom of this email are two pull requests for trusty/linux-signed-lts-xenial > and trusty/linux-meta-lts-xenial. > > Proposing these to fix the current cycle. > > -apw > > Andy Whitcroft (1): > UBUNTU: [Config] linux-headers common package is in the linux > namespace > > debian.xenial/control.d/flavour-control.stub | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > Agreed that this likely can only be checked against the resulting packages when things are applied. I fail to understand what the commit message of the additional patch (which depends on common headers) wants to say. I am guessing maybe that we used to produce a headers package for the backport which was the same as the common one in the originating series and now get rid of it? If whoever commits the patch has a better wording I would not mind getting this updated. Acked-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
On 2/12/19 2:50 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > Following this email is a configuration update for trusty/linux-lts-xenial which > fixes flavour-control.stub to match the rather confusing delta we carry in all lts backports. > > At the bottom of this email are two pull requests for trusty/linux-signed-lts-xenial > and trusty/linux-meta-lts-xenial. > > Proposing these to fix the current cycle. > > -apw > > Andy Whitcroft (1): > UBUNTU: [Config] linux-headers common package is in the linux > namespace > > debian.xenial/control.d/flavour-control.stub | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > Applied to trusty/lts-backport-xenial (linux, linux-meta and linux-signed), with some changes to the wording of the path for linux-headers. Thanks, Kleber
Following this email is a configuration update for trusty/linux-lts-xenial which fixes flavour-control.stub to match the rather confusing delta we carry in all lts backports. At the bottom of this email are two pull requests for trusty/linux-signed-lts-xenial and trusty/linux-meta-lts-xenial. Proposing these to fix the current cycle. -apw Andy Whitcroft (1): UBUNTU: [Config] linux-headers common package is in the linux namespace debian.xenial/control.d/flavour-control.stub | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)