On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> It won't migrate due to that autopkgtest failure. It's a bit weird that pcs
> hardcodes the pacemaker SONAME, doesn't depend on it, but then requires it for
> the autopkgtests? Or so it seems.
yes, so at the very least pcs needs either:
* versioned dependency on pacemaker (at least in the tests); or
* Breaks: pacemaker (<< 2.0)
This to make the pcs tests pass.
> So yeah you can add some breaks on pacemaker. Or add them on the new pcs against
> the old pacemaker library? Not sure what's the best solution here.
It feels to me that also pacemaker needs a versioned Breaks against pcs,
but adding one on pcs only should be enough to cover pacemaker as well.
I think at least.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature