I've merged both packages into the ViRogue PPA to test two things:
installing a ViRogue image on a Pi 5, then upgrading: everything looks good;
building a new ViRogue image for Pi 5, then deploying from scratch: everything looks good.
That's why I'm submitting this PR against the main branch: we should be all good.
There are no users of the pirogue-3rd-party-pi5 directory yet, so there should be no impact to anything in production. But it's going to make sure that the Pi 5 image in the next PTS release is going to be using the most recent linux-image packages for Pi 5, as found in the Raspberry OS repository. For the same reason (no users in production yet), there's no need to sign those packages with the historical GPG key, any (future) users of that repository are going to be having pirogue-archive-keyring installed, meaning the signature made with my key is going to be trusted.
Notified via
deb-frido:I've merged both packages into the ViRogue PPA to test two things:
That's why I'm submitting this PR against the
mainbranch: we should be all good.There are no users of the
pirogue-3rd-party-pi5directory yet, so there should be no impact to anything in production. But it's going to make sure that the Pi 5 image in the next PTS release is going to be using the most recentlinux-imagepackages for Pi 5, as found in the Raspberry OS repository. For the same reason (no users in production yet), there's no need to sign those packages with the historical GPG key, any (future) users of that repository are going to be havingpirogue-archive-keyringinstalled, meaning the signature made with my key is going to be trusted.