A couple of thoughts:
1)
In addition to future supported platforms, what about weird third party
hacked up things? Are we going to end up with reports from users who
have grabbed a custom image for some esoteric platform from someone who
is hacking something together for that platform by basing their work on
one of our official Raspberry Pi images? To be clear, they're welcome to
do that; we just don't want images mislabelled as Raspberry Pi causing
confusion in that case. Of course people can do that regardless of what
apport does, but labelling them as Raspberry Pi would exacerbate the
issue.
2)
+ if 'ImageMediaBuild' in report:
+ if report['Architecture'] in ('arm64', 'armhf'):
+ add_tag(report, 'raspi-image')
Why not simply add tags arm64-image and armhf-image? Then you'll get the
same effect you want but without a potentially misleading tag. This may
be kicking the can down the road, but maybe that's exactly what we want
to do here?
This should presumably be settled in the development release before the SRU
proceeds, so I'm deferring SRU review for now.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1920837
Title:
apport bugs from official raspi or riscv images are not identified
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/1920837/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
