Merge lp:~xnox/unity-greeter/no-s390x into lp:unity-greeter

Proposed by Dimitri John Ledkov on 2016-12-09
Status: Needs review
Proposed branch: lp:~xnox/unity-greeter/no-s390x
Merge into: lp:unity-greeter
Diff against target: 26 lines (+4/-1)
2 files modified
debian/changelog (+3/-0)
debian/control (+1/-1)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp:~xnox/unity-greeter/no-s390x
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Unity Greeter Development Team 2016-12-09 Pending
Review via email: mp+312912@code.launchpad.net

Description of the change

Do not re-introduce s390x builds now that upstart b-d is now removed.

To post a comment you must log in.
Iain Lane (laney) wrote :

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:13:29PM -0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov has proposed merging lp:~xnox/unity-greeter/no-s390x into lp:unity-greeter.
>
> Requested reviews:
> Unity Greeter Development Team (unity-greeter-team)
>
> For more details, see:
> https://code.launchpad.net/~xnox/unity-greeter/no-s390x/+merge/312912
>
> Do not re-introduce s390x builds now that upstart b-d is now removed.

I thought that the only problem was that we built uninstallable packages
due to Depends: upstart. Without that, the s390x packages would be
installable and so there's no problem building them.

Is that right?

--
Iain Lane [ <email address hidden> ]
Debian Developer [ <email address hidden> ]
Ubuntu Developer [ <email address hidden> ]

Iain Lane (laney) wrote :

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:21:59PM +0000, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:13:29PM -0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> > Dimitri John Ledkov has proposed merging lp:~xnox/unity-greeter/no-s390x into lp:unity-greeter.
> >
> > Requested reviews:
> > Unity Greeter Development Team (unity-greeter-team)
> >
> > For more details, see:
> > https://code.launchpad.net/~xnox/unity-greeter/no-s390x/+merge/312912
> >
> > Do not re-introduce s390x builds now that upstart b-d is now removed.
>
> I thought that the only problem was that we built uninstallable packages
> due to Depends: upstart. Without that, the s390x packages would be
> installable and so there's no problem building them.
>
> Is that right?

Indeed:

  https://code.launchpad.net/~laney/unity-greeter/bd-upstart/+merge/303386/comments/801401

So IMO it's okay to just drop both the BD and the D.

--
Iain Lane [ <email address hidden> ]
Debian Developer [ <email address hidden> ]
Ubuntu Developer [ <email address hidden> ]

Dimitri John Ledkov (xnox) wrote :

My new point is that now lp:unity-greeter does build and is installable on s390x (migrated to systemd), however, we none-the-less do not want to re-introduce unity-greeter package on s390x which was removed from the archive because we do not want to support it.

Iain Lane (laney) wrote :

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:27:12PM -0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> My new point is that now lp:unity-greeter does build and is installable on s390x (migrated to systemd), however, we none-the-less do not want to re-introduce unity-greeter package on s390x which was removed from the archive because we do not want to support it.

That's not why it was removed. It was only because it became
uninstallable.

I don't think there is any support burden here, and maintaining the arch
list will be more work over the long term.

My preference is to let it be built.

--
Iain Lane [ <email address hidden> ]
Debian Developer [ <email address hidden> ]
Ubuntu Developer [ <email address hidden> ]

Dimitri John Ledkov (xnox) wrote :

<xnox> Laney, i believe there was a dual intent in those s390x removals. it was not just about uninstalability, and not just about upstart, but to exclude/prevent ubuntu-desktop & ubuntu-touch because we do not support, nor want to build that, on s390x.
<xnox> slangasek hopefully can clarify that on https://code.launchpad.net/~xnox/unity-greeter/no-s390x/+merge/312912
<xnox> slangasek unless you want unity-greeter:s390x ?!
<slangasek> xnox: do not want
<slangasek> xnox: is that the answer you needed?
<slangasek> xnox: however - do not want but would not block
<xnox> Laney, ^

Adam Conrad (adconrad) wrote :

I'm with Laney on this one, FWIW. Maintaining arch lists of every desktop package we want to claim not to support is a much large burden than just letting them build.

Unmerged revisions

2102. By Dimitri John Ledkov on 2016-12-09

Do not build on s390x (upstart b-d is no longer a blocker).

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
1=== modified file 'debian/changelog'
2--- debian/changelog 2016-10-27 01:05:18 +0000
3+++ debian/changelog 2016-12-09 13:12:30 +0000
4@@ -11,6 +11,9 @@
5 * debian/rules:
6 - Update greeter logo for Zesty Zapus.
7
8+ [ Dimitri John Ledkov ]
9+ * Do not build on s390x (upstart b-d is no longer a blocker).
10+
11 -- Robert Ancell <robert.ancell@canonical.com> Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:31:53 +1300
12
13 unity-greeter (16.10.2.1) yakkety; urgency=medium
14
15=== modified file 'debian/control'
16--- debian/control 2016-10-26 08:23:56 +0000
17+++ debian/control 2016-12-09 13:12:30 +0000
18@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
19 Vcs-Bzr: https://code.launchpad.net/~unity-greeter-team/unity-greeter/trunk
20
21 Package: unity-greeter
22-Architecture: any
23+Architecture: amd64 arm64 armhf i386 powerpc ppc64el
24 Depends: ${misc:Depends},
25 ${shlibs:Depends},
26 systemd,

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches