On 2017-03-22 15:33, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:51:49PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>> a3deae8cb post_setup_zz_backports: improve systemd/udev handling for
>> jessie-backports
>
> nope, all failed too, see attached log…
oh, we are doing jessie2bpo instead of
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:51:49PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> a3deae8cb post_setup_zz_backports: improve systemd/udev handling for
> jessie-backports
nope, all failed too, see attached log…
btw, something else is wrong, 7 out of 8 slaves are getting nothing to do atm,
only one is testing
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:51:49PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> a3deae8cb post_setup_zz_backports: improve systemd/udev handling for
> jessie-backports
picked, deployed and those src:systemd logs recycled. Thanks!
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 2017-03-21 19:06, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Maybe it's best to use "jessie + udev/backports + systemd/backports" as the
> reference chroot instead of jessie directly.
Let's try that:
a3deae8cb post_setup_zz_backports: improve systemd/udev handling for
jessie-backports
Andreas
On 2017-03-21 18:43, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:32:25PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> They are not missing. When I was talking about dependencies I meant the
>> Breaks/Replaces.
>
> but those are not "depends" and I do believe they have different effects than
> "depends"…
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:32:25PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> They are not missing. When I was talking about dependencies I meant the
> Breaks/Replaces.
but those are not "depends" and I do believe they have different effects than
"depends"…
> Yeah, as I wrote earlier
> "Forcing the upgrade
Am 21.03.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:05:59PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> What should be wrong about the dependencies?
>
> they are missing?
They are not missing. When I was talking about dependencies I meant the
Breaks/Replaces.
>> Note that you ask
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:05:59PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> What should be wrong about the dependencies?
they are missing?
> Note that you ask apt explicitly to break stuff (in the logs I see "
> --force-yes" which is documented as potentially breaking systems; I
> hope users don't use
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:05:42PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:31:16PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> both systemd and udev need to be upgraded in lockstep:
> >> Forcing the upgrade of only one of the two will fail.
> > if this is the case, then I think the
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:31:16PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> both systemd and udev need to be upgraded in lockstep:
>>
>> a/ udev has Breaks/Replaces systemd (<< 224-2)
>> b/ systemd has a
On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 16:45 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:31:16PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > both systemd and udev need to be upgraded in lockstep:
> >
> > a/ udev has Breaks/Replaces systemd (<< 224-2)
> > b/ systemd has a Breaks/Replaces udev (<< 228-5)
> >
> >
Am 21.03.2017 um 17:45 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:31:16PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> both systemd and udev need to be upgraded in lockstep:
>>
>> a/ udev has Breaks/Replaces systemd (<< 224-2)
>> b/ systemd has a Breaks/Replaces udev (<< 228-5)
>>
>>
Hi Michael,
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:31:16PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> both systemd and udev need to be upgraded in lockstep:
>
> a/ udev has Breaks/Replaces systemd (<< 224-2)
> b/ systemd has a Breaks/Replaces udev (<< 228-5)
>
> Forcing the upgrade of only one of the two will fail.
if
Hi Holger
Am 19.03.2017 um 12:56 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> As I see it this is because we only tell apt-get to install udev from
> backports but dont tell it to also upgrade systemd to that version, so this
> is probably rather a bug in apt (or maybe piuparts) but not in src:systemd.
>
> Do you
Dear systemd maintainers,
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 01:27:22PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Package: piuparts.debian.org
>
> the subject says it: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing
> status, which is far too many for the stable release. We should track down the
> cause for
Package: piuparts.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hi,
the subject says it: jessie2bpo has >400 packages in dependency-failed-testing
status, which is far too many for the stable release. We should track down the
cause for this and fix it.
see https://piuparts.debian.org/jessie2bpo/
--
cheers,
16 matches
Mail list logo