Skip to content

chore(26.04): migrate libtcnative-1 to libtcnative-2 - #1053

Merged
cjdcordeiro merged 8 commits into
canonical:ubuntu-26.04from
vpa1977:libtcnative-resolute
Aug 4, 2026
Merged

chore(26.04): migrate libtcnative-1 to libtcnative-2#1053
cjdcordeiro merged 8 commits into
canonical:ubuntu-26.04from
vpa1977:libtcnative-resolute

Conversation

@vpa1977

@vpa1977 vpa1977 commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Proposed changes

Due to SRU https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tomcat-native/+bug/2155817 the libtcnative-1 migrates to libtcnative-2.

Update resolute slice definitions.

Related issues/PRs

also included in #1051

Forward porting

Checklist

Additional Context

@vpa1977
vpa1977 force-pushed the libtcnative-resolute branch from 31b7702 to 88f7d47 Compare July 7, 2026 23:09
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Diff of dependencies:
None found.


@rroessler rroessler left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me!

@vpa1977
vpa1977 marked this pull request as ready for review July 9, 2026 19:59
@vpa1977

vpa1977 commented Jul 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Removed slices check fails due to the migration

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Test Coverage

Average Total Coverage: 100.00%


Arch: aarch64

Coverage: 100.00%

libtcnative-2: ☂️ 100.00% (0 missing)

Arch: ppc64le

Coverage: 100.00%

libtcnative-2: ☂️ 100.00% (0 missing)

Arch: s390x

Coverage: 100.00%

libtcnative-2: ☂️ 100.00% (0 missing)

Arch: x86_64

Coverage: 100.00%

libtcnative-2: ☂️ 100.00% (0 missing)

@vpa1977
vpa1977 requested a review from rroessler July 10, 2026 08:12

@alesancor1 alesancor1 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a regression, libtcnative-1 still exists in the archives, so I don't think it should be removed.

My suggestion is to create a new SDF for libtcnative-2 and leave the previous one unchanged.

In terms of contents, the SDF LGTM 👍

@vpa1977
vpa1977 requested a review from alesancor1 July 14, 2026 20:01
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the forward port missing The forward port is missing. label Jul 14, 2026

@alesancor1 alesancor1 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All good content-wise, just create a new test for libtcnative-2 and should be good to go! 👍

Comment thread tests/spread/integration/libtcnative-2/task.yaml
@vpa1977
vpa1977 requested a review from alesancor1 July 17, 2026 08:10
@alesancor1
alesancor1 requested review from lczyk and removed request for rroessler July 17, 2026 08:16
@lczyk lczyk added ready to merge This PR is ready to be merged and removed forward port missing The forward port is missing. labels Aug 2, 2026
@lczyk

lczyk commented Aug 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

this is FPed in #1051 but that is a PR with real changes landing in 26.10. any real changes to 26.10 are currently hard-blocked by lack of chisel support (canonical/chisel#306). hence i've done a cherry-pick forward port here: #1121

@cjdcordeiro marking this + its FP as ready to merge for you since i believe you can just merge these two

@lczyk
lczyk requested a review from cjdcordeiro August 2, 2026 09:14
@vpa1977
vpa1977 requested a review from rroessler August 2, 2026 22:39
@cjdcordeiro

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

merging this one but leaving it's FP open, due to the comment from @lczyk above (no rush either)

@cjdcordeiro
cjdcordeiro merged commit d0ab7e9 into canonical:ubuntu-26.04 Aug 4, 2026
25 checks passed
@lczyk

lczyk commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@cjdcordeiro can you also merge the cherrypick PR too (#1121) to keep 26.10 in sync? #1051 can then just be rebased on top of 26.10

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ready to merge This PR is ready to be merged

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants