On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 02:18:06PM +0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > https://ubuntu-archive-team.ubuntu.com/pending-sru.html
> Contains many SRUs which will never be removed. Over time they are > becoming harmful, as they are superseded by ESM-only updates, and/or > become incompatible with ESM-pinning or custom pinning. > I encourage all uploaders to check the status of their own uploads. > And either make the packages releasable, or actively remove them to > drive the list to zero such that it only have things we still want to > intentionally update. > Please remove: > sru-remove --reason=failed -s focal -p secureboot-db 1890835 > sru-remove --reason=failed -s xenial -p secureboot-db 1890835 > sru-remove --reason=esm -s bionic -p linux-restricted-signatures-hwe-5.4 > 1786013 > sru-remove --reason=esm -s bionic -p linux-ibm-5.4 2019375 > sru-remove --reason=esm -s bionic -p > linux-restricted-signatures-aws-5.4 1786013 > sru-remove --reason=esm -s bionic -p > linux-restricted-signatures-azure-5.4 1786013 > sru-remove --reason=esm -s bionic -p > linux-restricted-signatures-gcp-5.4 1786013 > sru-remove --reason=esm -s bionic -p > linux-restricted-signatures-oracle-5.4 1786013 > sru-remove --reason=esm -s bionic -p linux-raspi-5.4 2019368 > Above packages now conflict when building snaps with "pro_enable=True" > and when pinning is in use to pick the right kernel from the right > ppa. But also they no longer should exist, are not supported, and > should be removed without archiving. Historically, we have taken the position on the SRU team that SRUs which are still in progress when a release goes EOL are not deleted; the rationale being that if the package builds more than one binary, and some user has installed one or more of those binaries from -proposed, on balance, it is better UX for them to be able to apt install other binaries (from the -proposed pocket of an EOL release) than to be given an error about unsatisfiable dependencies. This is a marginal case, but OTOH why should this have any impact on snap builds? Snaps shouldn't be building against -proposed, with or without pro enabled, should they? Anyway, the secureboot-db case is straightforward enough since there's only one binary package, so I've gone ahead and removed them. With the kernels, I'm doubly confused as to how this actually matters - haven't all of these kernels had superseding versions in the ESM archive for pro? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Ubuntu-release mailing list Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
