On 14 September 2016 at 10:11, Timo Sigurdsson <public_timo.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 5 September 2016 at 02:43, Timo Sigurdsson >> <public_timo.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The builddeb script has some hardcoded references to linux version 2.6 >>> which is ancient. Use a variable instead in order to keep in sync with >>> new releases and avoid the need to manually update this. In addition, >>> change the copyright notice to include the year 2016. >> >> I think we can just drop all the "Provides" lines, the official debian >> packages don't provide >> anything, and nothing depends on these provided virtual packages either. > > As far as Debian is concerned, that's true. However, Ubuntu's linux > packages have these "Provides" lines. But as I haven't used Ubuntu in a > while, I don't know if these are actually required for anything on Ubuntu > systems. Ubuntu has "linux-image" but not "linux-image-$majorversion". No reverse dependencies on either (apt-cache rdepends). Let me ask the other way around - why do you need linux-image-4.9 in your provides? > I'd be fine with any decision (keep or drop), I just don't wanna make the > call to drop them as I'm not aware about the implications on other Debian > based distributions. I'd like to keep builddeb script simple. If there is some evidence that something is still using "linux-image" or "linux-headers" virtual package, we can keep them in the "provides" line. dropping the linux-image-2.6 and linux-headers-2.6 bits should however be preferred over starting to updating the dynamically. Especially since we've managed all the way from 2.6 ... 4.7 without anyone needing it. Riku -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
