Control: tags -1 confirmed On 15/12/15 21:27, Niko Tyni wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 06:26:34PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:15:03 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> >>>>> Dominic Hargreaves <d...@earth.li> writes: >> >>>>>> If not then perhaps that should just be dropped from the >>>>>> redhat-cluster package ASAP [...] -- of course, since redhat-cluster >>>>>> FTBFS, this would have to be done by the release team manually >>>>>> removing (just) libccs-perl from testing. Is this feasible? >>> >>> Not really. At least not AFAIK, and it'd be hackish and ugly if it was >>> possible. >>> It'd be nice if the FTBFS got fixed instead. If it's too difficult to make >>> it >>> build with GCC 5 (I guess it isn't, but...) then as a temporary workaround >>> you >>> could make it build with GCC 4.9. >> >> The build doesn't even get that far, it fails due to the corosync >> changes, cf. #804590. > > Just so everyone is on the same page, the redhat-cluster FTBFS is now > the only thing blocking a 500+ package Perl transition we've been working > on for half a year. > > It looks to me like the corosync v1->v2 API changes are indeed significant > enough that making redhat-cluster build again is non-trivial. > > So the proper way out seems to be a separate libdlm source package, as > discussed in [1]. Ferenc, do I understand right that a new pacemaker > package is a blocker for this? Is that because the current pacemaker > would be broken by the libdlm update? > > FWIW I see Ubuntu already separated libdlm out back in 2013. Maybe that > work helps a bit? > > Some other hackish and ugly things we've discussed: > > - is it technically possible to force the transition through and leave > libccs-perl uninstallable in testing? Or do britney et al. enforce > the installability so that it can't be overridden?
That's possible, in exceptional circumstances. Obviously I would prefer not to do that. > - as clearly nobody cares about libccs-perl itself, would hijacking > the libccs-perl binary package with a (more or less dummy) new source > package work wrt. testing migration? Let's not do that. > - reintroducing corosync v1 temporarily to get redhat-cluster to build > would work AFAICS but it's *very* ugly... Let's not do that. > - temporarily dropping the clvm binary package until libdlm can be built > again seems doable, but as #697676 shows something like this was done > for wheezy and had to reverted due to user demand, so presumably Bastian > wouldn't be thrilled to try it again Right. That shouldn't be necessary. If redhat-cluster doesn't get fixed in time, I guess we'll just make libccs-perl uninstallable. Let's do this. Cheers, Emilio