On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 03:07:49PM +0200, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:27:35 +0200 Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 12-07-2021 18:45, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > This was already discussed in > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=959022 > > > > > > My takeaway from that discussion was, that rdeps of cgroup-tools, would > > > itself have to be made cgroupv2 aware, especially OpenStack and its > > > components. > > > > That resembles my understanding of that discussion too. > > Mine too. > > zigo, are there any news from openstack about this? > > > > > > Have those rdeps been tested successfully with libcgroup/cgroup-tools > > > from experimental? > > > > I'm not in favor of doing this transition now. > > > > Please, keep in mind this comment, made before the release of 2.0: > "we are planning something for next week. The version number will > probably be 2.0 - with expectation that the v2 cycle will have > continously breaking ABI. When we are happy where it is, we will push > out v3 which will then maintain ABI through its lifetime." > https://github.com/libcgroup/libcgroup/issues/12#issuecomment-825816328
What kind of ABI is this referring to? Based on soname and package name, the libcgroup1 in experimental claims to be ABI compatible with the library in buster. Changes in bookworm would be a normal library transition. OpenStack uses cgroup-tools, which is the only reason why libcgroup stayed in bullseye at all. My suggestion was basically asking whether 2.0 would be better for using with the version of OpenStack in bullseye, this is similar to your question to Thomas above. If cgroup-tools in *bookworm* would be incompatible with OpenStack in bullseye, this could be resolved with Breaks on the bullseye versions of cinder-common/nova-compute - this is irrelevant for discussing which version of libcgroup to ship in bullseye. > Cheers, > > -- Santiago cu Adrian
