I never thought to use the backports repo in Jessie to keep pacemaker installed. That's a great idea, I'll give it a try and see what happens.
Regarding Pacemaker's data and config, as far as I could tell, it was gone. I'm not positive what happened with it, but I wonder if the fact that the pacemaker package was missing entirely from the new release caused apt to just get rid of it during the upgrade. I can also re-try that and keep closer track of what gets removed. I do know that when I upgraded from Wheezy to Jessie and then to Stretch, and then I re-installed Pacemaker in Stretch, it didn't find any old config data and acted like a new installation. Thanks! Dave On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Roberto C. Sánchez <robe...@debian.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:26:20AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > According to http://packages.debian.org/pacemaker there is also a > > backport of the stretch version of the package in the jessie-backports > > repository. So perhaps there is some way to convince the jessie upgrade > > to use the jessie-backports version of this package rather than removing > > it. But that's beyond my experience. > > > > I totally forgot about backports. Generally, including backports > repositories of the upgrade target (i.e., the suite being upgraded to) > is not a good idea. However, this situation would qualify as extenuating > circumstances. Plus, someone who manages a HA cluster almost certainly > has the skills to deal with the occasional minor hiccup assocaited with > mixing backports into an upgrade. > > The only thing I would say is use apt "pinning" to prioritize the > backports repository lower than the other repositories so you don't > accidentally get backports for *everything* that has a backport > available. > > Regards, > > -Roberto > -- > Roberto C. Sánchez > > -- Dave Parker '11 Database & Systems Administrator Utica College Integrated Information Technology Services (315) 792-3229 Registered Linux User #408177
