On 16/12/15 00:12, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Niko Tyni <nt...@debian.org> writes:
>
>> So the proper way out seems to be a separate libdlm source package, as
>> discussed in [1]. Ferenc, do I understand right that a new pacemaker
>> package is a blocker for this? Is that because the current pacemaker
>> would be broken by the libdlm update?
>
> No: the new DLM package depends on the new Pacemaker package. I'm
> already testing them, there's only some cleanup remaining before they
> can be uploaded. Both will go through NEW though, so it will take some
> time.
I can speed things up if they block a transition... Got an eta for this?
> Then LVM will have to be rebuilt against the new DLM, and you
> will be free to kick redhat-cluster out of the archive (I hope nothing
> else depends on it).
Checking reverse dependencies...
# Broken Depends:
gfs2-utils: gfs2-cluster [amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 mips mipsel powerpc
ppc64el s390x]
gfs2-utils [amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 mips mipsel powerpc
ppc64el s390x]
lvm2: clvm [amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 mips mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64el
s390x]
# Broken Build-Depends:
gfs2-utils: libccs-dev (>= 3.1.0)
libcman-dev (>= 3.1.0)
libdlm-dev (>= 3.1.0)
libdlmcontrol-dev (>= 3.1.0)
libfence-dev (>= 3.1.0)
liblogthread-dev (>= 3.1.0)
lvm2: libcman-dev (> 2)
libdlm-dev (> 2)
ocfs2-tools: libdlm-dev
libdlmcontrol-dev
Cheers,
Emilio
