Questions about LTS backports to Hardy

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 01:27:01PM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:34:48AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> >> I'm working on backporting recent kernels to LTS releases such as Hardy.
> >>
> >> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-karmic-new-kernel-on-lts
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if I should create a new Hardy meta package, e.g.,
> >> linux-meta-2.6.28_2.6.28* ?  The package that users would be instructed
> >> to install would then be of the form:
> >>
> >> linux-image-server-2.6.28_2.6.28*${arch}.deb
> >>
> >> which would obviously pull in the dependent kernel packages.
> > 
> > I think that makes sense, yes. You might want to be a bit careful about
> > the couple of binary packages that are -2.6.28 rather than
> > -2.6.28-ABI-FLAVOUR, but that are built by the main kernel source
> > package - IIRC linux-doc-2.6.28 and linux-source-2.6.28 fall into this
> > category. Just leaving those out of linux-meta-2.6.28 would be good
> > enough.
> > 
> 
> Your comment about binary packages is in reference to linux-meta,
> correct? I'll take some care to make sure there are no conflicts with
> existing Hardy meta packages.
> 
> Your comment did get me to thinking about the binary packages generated
> by the kernel. What do you suggest I do about linux-libc-dev, which will
> supersede an existing Hardy package? Shall I rename it, or just not
> produce it? I think it ought to be superfluous.

I removed it in my packages.  It defines the API that the libraries are
using, and we are working on the assumption this ABI is compatible
enough old to new to allow much of userspace to be the same.  So I think
its not needed.

I wondered about having a meta package which was linux-jaunty which gave
you the jaunty kernel on hardy.

-apw