Comment 4 for bug 1826045
Revision history for this message
| Robie Basak (racb) wrote Re: [Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0 | #4 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:30:48PM -0000, Eric Desrochers wrote:
> At first I thought it has something to do with the use of 'Recommends:
> pacemaker (>= 2.0)' which is not as strong/powerful as 'Depends:'
Looking deeper, I think this is it. It's perfectly possible (as far as
apt is concerned) to install pcs without installing pacemaker. Ask for
both together however and apt refuses. From a packaging perspective this
is fine - there are plenty of package sets in the distribution that are
not co-installable (eg. those that directly Conflict). So that's why it
will have passed the installability check.
The reason the autopkgtest result was ignored was the following:
https:/
...which did:
-force-badtest pcs/0.9.164-1 pcs/0.9.166-2 pcs/0.9.166-5
+force-badtest pcs/0.9.166-5 pcs/0.10.1-2
...which was wrong.
Is there any circumstance where a user might find installing pcs without
pacemaker a useful thing to do? If not, then perhaps it should be a
Depends. If there is some circumstance in which it's generally OK, then
I guess we need to rely on autopkgtest and not hinting it incorrectly.