2011/9/20 Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk>: > 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 >> http://release.debian.org/proposed-updates/stable_diffs/ctdb_1.0.112-12-2.debdiff). >> >> 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?
Of course. The patch in -2 is the same as in unstable. It depends on a patch (http://git.samba.org/?p=ctdb.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=d98f175e84, 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 CTDB_MANAGES_HTTPD="yes". Is this OK? Or should I cheerypick patches from sid? -- Mathieu Parent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cafx5sbxtj7vu+cfm60yjujg6pjn0ax3xdaxvtswlhqaqwwm...@mail.gmail.com
