* David Goulet <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03 Nov (18:19:21), Jon Bernard wrote: > > * Jon Bernard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Jon Bernard" <[email protected]> > > > > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <[email protected]> > > > > > Cc: "Stéphane Graber" <[email protected]>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" > > > > > <[email protected]>, > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 9:45:21 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > That is not exactly what I intended to convey, let me be more direct > > > > > about my > > > > > view. I completely agree that sid should have 2.3.x immediately. I > > > > > also > > > > > agree > > > > > that 2.3 should be targeted for testing, and therefore the next stable > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > Allright :) I'm glad we're on the same page, sorry for the > > > > misunderstanding. > > > > > > No worries. I'll add that future releases (like the upcoming 2.4) will > > > be prepared and tested all together prior to upload - to hopefully avoid > > > the previous situation/nightmare that I managed to get myself into. > > > > > > There can still be a sizable amount of work for 2.3 to fully land into > > > testing, so that is my primary focus. The freeze deadline is fast > > > approaching, so I will be keeping a close eye on things as they > > > progress. As things settle I'll post status here. > > > > lttng-tools 2.3.0 was just accepted, so on sid (unstable) we should now be > > at > > version 2.3.0 across the board. Things look pretty good to me, but if > > anyone > > has time to test the packages and let me know if something's missing, > > structured > > incorrectly, or not behaving as expected - that would be awesome. > > Why is lttng-tools depending on "lttng-modules-dkms"? It should not, it > should only be a suggested package. > > http://packages.debian.org/sid/lttng-tools
If you scroll down a bit, you'll see that it is a suggestion for all of the current architectures. I fixed this in the last upload, but the packages view is misleading. The powerpcspe should be removed, and armel is failing - so the latest version is not being considered. Once things settle, that view will look as it should. -- Jon _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
