Hi Otto! Otto Kekäläinen <o...@debian.org>, 15/05/2021 – 12:56:58 (-0700):
> Yes we consider doing that. Note however that it does not fix this bug > in question, we still want the dist-upgrade for Galera users to > succeed. It also needs to be debugged and a MR submitted on how to > change Galera-4 debian/control file for the upgrade to pass > flawlessly. It's not clear to me what the upgrade path for Galera would be given the fact that both galera-3 and galera-4 packages exists in Bullseye. Should a dist-upgrade upgrade galera-3 to galera-4 or does the user explicitly have to ask for galera-4? Also, removing the dependency to galera resolves the fact that mariadb-server-10.3 is removed on a dist-upgrade (galera-3 is not removed and mariadb-server-10.3 is upgraded to mariadb-server-10.5). So if the deadline to upload mariadb is short (you spoke about tomorrow), I find this solution valid until we find also a solution for Galera of course... > > The salsa CI is still green when doing so: > > https://salsa.debian.org/faust/mariadb-10.5/-/pipelines/254990 > > Good. Did you also test upstream buildbot? I have just created a WIP PR for that: https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/1829 > Revert: > https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/6bd94cf54274d54521ece1e50d534777122ff29e You mean: https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/b9fee60871264ea56a5582ca7a436aabdabea6fc > But as said, the bug #988089 can only be fixed by a change in galera-4 > debian/control. Changing the mariadb-10.5 debian/control to > recommends:galera-4 is a separate change. Ok but I have no idea how this should be handled then. See my previous comment and https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/galera-3 and https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/galera-4. -- Faustin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
