> No, that's not how it works. I'm not sure I know what you were referring to.
Can you give a single justification for breaking existing consumers of a deliverable? I do not see justification anywhere. Not in the commit message [1], the merge proposal [2] or any of the comments here. This is the sort of thing I'd hope to see discussion of in a merge proposal. I've pointed out that a change made is backwards incompatible. I've suggested ways you support including information about snap packages (manifest.json). I consider this on topic. Is this change intended to be SRU'd ? As a cosmic-forward change this could be acceptable, but even then... Why? [1] https://code.launchpad.net/~codyshepherd/livecd-rootfs/snaps-manifest/+merge/358530 [2] https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/livecd-rootfs/trunk/revision/1714 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1803162 Title: non-dpkg information and broken format in manifest To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-images/+bug/1803162/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
