Comment 2 for bug 1871835

Discussed in the MIR meeting:

[15:02] <cpaelzer> and actually I don't think this even needs a review
[15:02] <cpaelzer> this is a kernel source like the many kernel sources built by the kernel team
[15:02] <cpaelzer> just another flavor of it
[15:03] <cpaelzer> doko: how did we add e.g. -azure and -gce abck in the day
[15:03] <cpaelzer> does this really need a review - or can we promote it right away?
[15:04] <cpaelzer> joeubuntu: sarnold: and from your POV - adding those would be a no-op right?
[15:05] <cpaelzer> you track kernels anyway I guess
[15:06] <joeubuntu> I don't see a problem, sarnold your thoughts ?
[15:06] <sarnold> cpaelzer: yeah, I'm not sure how the zoo of kernels works out
[15:06] <cpaelzer> doko: how was this handled in the past
[15:06] <cpaelzer> I'd prefere to just do it the same way
[15:06] <cpaelzer> which most likely means no new MIR process needed on this
[15:06] <sarnold> cpaelzer: the one funny thing with pi is that it seems to have binary blobs that may be less maintainable than more 'normal' machine kernels
[15:07] <sarnold> cpaelzer: but that seems more like a business decision, "is this platform important enough to pay the costs", and hope that our partners will be able to supply us with fixes in five, ten years
[15:11] <doko> cpaelzer: no MIR required in the past, same as for the versioned source packages
[15:11] <cpaelzer> thank doko, can I assign it to you for promotion on thaose terms then?