On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 11:47 AM Christian Kastner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2025-12-10 10:29, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > > Quoting Christian Kastner (2025-12-10 09:35:26) > >> On 2025-12-10 09:24, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > >>>> I guess for bullseye+ and the equivalent in Ubuntu, linux-image-generic > >>>> could > >>>> be proposed? Would you like to do this, or would you prefer I do it? > >>> > >>> Proposed? You mean to autopkgtest itself? > >> Yes. If I understood one of your earlier mails correctly, you'd like to > >> have this aligned (which of course makes sense). > > > > Please go ahead and feel free to cc me if you like. > I didn't manage to get to this yesterday, but taking a look today I > don't feel confident enough to propose a change on my behalf. > > First, there is a bit of work involved, namely determining which Ubuntu > and Debian codenames first supported linux-image-generic. > > For all that didn't, we'd fall back to the previous logic, which we'd > have to keep around until those distros stop being supported.
> This is all fair and good of course, except that I believe the very > simple heuristic we discussed yesterday is already good enough. Yes, it > produces a few false negatives, but it feels a bit wrong to me to add > code just to accommodate a handful of mirrors that can't spell "ubuntu" > correctly. I'm not at all convinced that detecting ubuntu mirror by matching for ubuntu in domain name makes any sense. There's plenty of mirrors that contain that substring in URI and not in domain name. Why can't the DistroInfo approach be used? Why can't the detection be codename-based? > If you want to go ahead, search for "jessie" in autopkgtest-build-qemu > and see that there is already a hard-coded list for older releases in > there. It would probably be the easiest to just follow that, for the > older releases. autopkgtest depends on python3-distro-info but I didn't > see a ranking/sorting function there. > > Best, > Christian Thank you! Roman.
