On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > It won't migrate due to that autopkgtest failure. It's a bit weird that pcs > hardcodes the pacemaker SONAME, doesn't depend on it, but then requires it for > the autopkgtests? Or so it seems.
yes, so at the very least pcs needs either: * versioned dependency on pacemaker (at least in the tests); or * Breaks: pacemaker (<< 2.0) This to make the pcs tests pass. > So yeah you can add some breaks on pacemaker. Or add them on the new pcs > against > the old pacemaker library? Not sure what's the best solution here. It feels to me that also pacemaker needs a versioned Breaks against pcs, but adding one on pcs only should be enough to cover pacemaker as well. I think at least. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature