[focal] pacemaker i386 should drop a few i386 only packages
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
pacemaker (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Rafael David Tinoco | ||
Focal |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Rafael David Tinoco |
Bug Description
When executing pacemaker i386 autopkgtests I realized that package "resource-agents" wasn't available for i386. When discussing this with @vorlon we came into the conclusion that some i386 only cluster packages could be removed from the repository, towards the effort of having *only the essential* packages available in i386 (to be run together with an amd64 host).
IRC log:
"""
<rafaeldtinoco> resource-agents i386 binary package
<vorlon> the pacemaker binary is /not/ present on i386 in the release pocket
<vorlon> that may have been an overly aggressive removal
<rafaeldtinoco> vorlon: are u keeping pacemaker because of dependencies ?
<vorlon> yeah, I removed it when I shouldn't have
(https:/
<vorlon> rafaeldtinoco: pacemaker-dev is a build-dep of something else we need,
see the referenced germinate output for full details
https:/
<vorlon> pacemaker-dev is a build-dep of dlm
<vorlon> and libesmtp-dev is a build-dep of pacemaker, not the other way around
<vorlon> (and dlm is a build-dep of lvm2)
<rafaeldtinoco> ah gotcha
<rafaeldtinoco> dlm -> corosync -> pacemaker
<vorlon> so, even though I removed the binary in error from the release pocket,
the right answer is still for pacemaker/i386 binary to go away (leaving only the
-dev and lib packages)
<vorlon> do you want me to fix that up, or do you want to?
<rafaeldtinoco> to fix that we should do like we did to samba ?
<vorlon> yeah
<vorlon> looks like the binaries you'll need to drop are pacemaker,
pacemaker-
<vorlon> and I'll remove those from -proposed right now, so that those don't
hold up migration
<vorlon> but I'll hold off on adding the hint until they're dropped from the
source
<rafaeldtinoco> deal, and next hint ill do with proper branch
"""
Related branches
- Rafael David Tinoco (community): Approve
- Steve Langasek (community): Approve
- Canonical Server Core Reviewers: Pending requested
-
Diff: 39 lines (+18/-1)2 files modifieddebian/changelog (+12/-0)
debian/rules (+6/-1)
Changed in pacemaker (Ubuntu): | |
status: | New → In Progress |
importance: | Undecided → Medium |
assignee: | nobody → Rafael David Tinoco (rafaeldtinoco) |
description: | updated |
"fakeroot debian/rules build-arch" gives me:
dpkg-deb: building package 'pacemaker-remote' in '../pacemaker- remote_ 2.0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . 2.0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . er29_2. 0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . ce28_2. 0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . rules26_ 2.0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . 7_2.0.1- 5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . oner25_ 2.0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . status28_ 2.0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . dev_2.0. 1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . 2.0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . 2.0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . n34_2.0. 1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . 26_2.0. 1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' . cli-utils' in '../pacemaker- cli-utils_ 2.0.1-5ubuntu5_ i386.deb' .
dpkg-deb: building package 'pacemaker' in '../pacemaker_
dpkg-deb: building package 'libcrmcluster29' in '../libcrmclust
dpkg-deb: building package 'libcrmservice28' in '../libcrmservi
dpkg-deb: building package 'libpe-rules26' in '../libpe-
dpkg-deb: building package 'libpengine27' in '../libpengine2
dpkg-deb: building package 'libtransitioner25' in '../libtransiti
dpkg-deb: building package 'libpe-status28' in '../libpe-
dpkg-deb: building package 'pacemaker-dev' in '../pacemaker-
dpkg-deb: building package 'libcib27' in '../libcib27_
dpkg-deb: building package 'liblrmd28' in '../liblrmd28_
dpkg-deb: building package 'libcrmcommon34' in '../libcrmcommo
dpkg-deb: building package 'libstonithd26' in '../libstonithd
dpkg-deb: building package 'pacemaker-
Since it doesn't build pacemaker-doc it does not depend on missing packages in i386 (pelican, for example).