Re: ctdb for stable-proposed-updates
2011/9/20 Adam D. Barratt <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:20 +0200, Mathieu Parent wrote:
>> While testing ctdb (1.0.112-12-2) with apache2 failover, I find that
>> the proposed patch was not good (92-apache-service-enable.diff from
>> So, I propose another upload with the following diff from -2:
>> +Upstream status: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8317
>> This has been completely tested (aka, not only in sid) and fixes the problem.
>> Can I upload it?
> Apologies if I'm missing something, but your comment above implies that
> the newly proposed patch has been applied in unstable. However,
> checking the package from unstable only shows the patch already applied
> in -2. Please could you clarify?
The patch in -2 is the same as in unstable. It depends on a patch
only the "is_ctdb_managed_service" part of it is needed) that is in
testing and sid but not in squeeze. This patch adds an optional
argument to the is_ctdb_managed_service function that defaults to
$service_name (it does the same think as before the patch when no
param is provided).
The patch in -3 workaround the lack of parameter in
is_ctdb_managed_service function, by adding "apache2" to the $t "kind
of" array when CTDB_MANAGES_HTTPD="yes".
So the patch proposed in -3 is different from the one in sid but it
does the same thing, aka exiting the 41.httpd script unless
Is this OK? Or should I cheerypick patches from sid?