NACK: [j/linux-raspi v2 RESEND4 PATCH 0/2] Make snapcraft.yaml work

[Juerg Haefliger]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:53:19 +0900
Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada at canonical.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:34 PM Juerg Haefliger
> <juerg.haefliger at canonical.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:35:53 +0000
> > Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov at canonical.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 06:46, Juerg Haefliger
> > > <juerg.haefliger at canonical.com> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > Still missing the requested SRU tag and SRU justification. Why are you
> > > > refusing to follow our process?
> > > >
> > > > ...Juerg
> > > >  
> > >
> > > This is however not a .deb feature at all; nor should it end up in the
> > > changelog. I'm not sure there is anything SRUish to justify here.  
> >
> > It's a modification of the kernel source code of a stable kernel, so yes it's
> > an SRU change. Whether that is user-visible or not is irrelevant and
> > can be noted in the bug report. People have tooling to scrub the
> > mailing list and missing SRU tags will/might drop patches. Checking the SRU
> > justification in the bug report is one of the review steps. Why is it so hard
> > to follow the documented process and make the life of the people involved
> > easier?  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if this is related to SRU, but
> can we regard this patch falls into the
> category "Simple, obvious and short fixes" ?
> 
> 
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelUpdates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it acceptable if I add the following info to
> the LP bug tracker?
> 

Yes.

...Juerg

> 
> 
> SRU Justification:
> 
> 
> Impact:
>  The in-tree snapcraft.yaml is stale. It does not produce any
>  functional kernel snap for jammy:linux-raspi.
> 
> 
> Fix:
>   Replace the stale snapcraft.yaml with a newly implemented one.
> 
> 
> Testcase:
> 
>    Build a pi-kernel with the command:
> 
>     $ snapcraft --use-lxd --build-for=arm64
> 
>    or
> 
>     $ snapcraft --use-lxd --build-for=armhf
> 
>    Then, install it to Ubuntu Core 22 running on a raspi board.
> 
>     $ snap  install --dangerous <kernel-snap>
> 
>    Please note you need "grade: dangerous" for replacing
>    the kernel from the local file.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > ...Juerg
> >
> >  
> > > Separately, I want to try to see if doing this build in launchpad out
> > > of the full kernel git tree will even work, due to the sheer size of
> > > the clone to be done. In the past that would time out. That's why all
> > > of our recipes are usually maintained out of tree. I am pondering if
> > > this should just be a branch with snapcraft.yaml alone on the
> > > ~canonical-kernel-snaps 22 snapcraft recipes repo only, with
> > > snapcraft.yaml doing git clone of the pi kernel packaging repo with
> > > depth set to 1.
> > >
> > >  
> > > >
> > > > On Wed,  7 Feb 2024 11:22:04 +0900
> > > > Masahiro Yamada <masahiro.yamada at canonical.com> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > linux-raspi added snapcraft.yaml more than a decade ago,
> > > > > which is not functional at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Remove the old one, and re-implement working snapcraft.yaml.
> > > > >
> > > > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051468
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2):
> > > > >   UBUNTU: [Packaging] Remove old snapcraft.yaml
> > > > >   UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add snapcraft.yaml for building uc22 pi-kernel
> > > > >     snap
> > > > >
> > > > >  snapcraft.yaml | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > kernel-team mailing list
> > > > kernel-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> > > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team  
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> >  

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/attachments/20240219/5405f33e/attachment.sig>