[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2020-07-02 Thread Steve Langasek
** Changed in: pcs (Ubuntu Disco) Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1826045 Title: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0,

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-06-03 Thread Dan Streetman
see also related corosync bug 1831492 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1826045 Title: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0 To manage

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-31 Thread Heitor Alves de Siqueira
** Tags removed: sts -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1826045 Title: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0 To manage notifications about this bug

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-30 Thread Steve Langasek
** Changed in: pcs (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Released => Won't Fix ** Changed in: pcs (Ubuntu) Status: Won't Fix => Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1826045 Title:

Re: [Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-28 Thread Robie Basak
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 07:31:16PM -, Eric Desrochers wrote: > Seems like 2) and 3) are now covered, we just need to come to an > agreement about what we do next with Disco for 1). A quick drive by comment wearing my SRU hat in case it helps: If the package is really completely broken and

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-28 Thread Eric Desrochers
Going back to my previous list: 1) To come to a conclusion about what is the next action plan to fix Disco (based on Heitor's proposals) 2) Maybe suggest to debian a change to replace 'Recommends:' to 'Depends:' in d/control to make the declaration more strict/stronger. 3) Try to understand

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-28 Thread Heitor Alves de Siqueira
Even in the case that you are operating on a remote server, the remote pcsd client needs pacemaker/corosync scripts. Without that, even the very basic commands won't work: ubuntu@disco:~$ pcs status Error: unable to run command crm_mon --one-shot --inactive: No such file or directory: 'crm_mon'

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-28 Thread Eric Desrochers
Oh maybe 'pcs' can be operated from a remote server for pcs and provides a web UI. In this case, maybe pacemaker is not 'needed' all the time. I'm not a 'pcs' expert here, but yeah maybe this is why 'Recommends:' has been picked. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-28 Thread Eric Desrochers
I don't think so, seems like 'pcs' is the 'Pacemaker Configuration System'. I can't see how 'pcs' can be useful outside the pacemaker/corosync context. Reference: -- https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pcs PCS - Pacemaker/Corosync Configuration System Pcs is a Corosync and Pacemaker

Re: [Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-28 Thread Robie Basak
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:30:48PM -, 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

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-28 Thread Eric Desrochers
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:' but still, there is a 'Breaks: pacemaker (<< 2.0)' which make the binary package uninstallable, proposed migration should detect that right ? Additionnally,

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-28 Thread Robie Basak
Thank you for working on this. I was curious to understand why proposed migration didn't block this change from hitting the release pocket. Is there a missing dependency somewhere? For example: > The current version of pcs in disco is 0.10.x, which requires pacemaker >= 2.0 and corosync >=3.0,

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-16 Thread Heitor Alves de Siqueira
** Description changed: - The current version of pcs in disco is 0.10.x, which requires pacemaker - >= 2.0 and corosync >=3.0, neither of which are available yet. Should - the version be downgraded to 0.9.x until the other packages are updated? + [Impact] + pcs can't be used for pacemaker and

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-10 Thread Heitor Alves de Siqueira
** Also affects: pcs (Ubuntu Disco) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: pcs (Ubuntu Disco) Status: New => Confirmed ** Changed in: pcs (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Fix Released ** Changed in: pcs (Ubuntu Disco) Importance: Undecided => High ** Changed

[Bug 1826045] Re: Unsatisfiable recommended dependencies pacemaker >= 2.0, corosync >= 3.0

2019-05-10 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users. ** Changed in: pcs (Ubuntu) Status: New => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1826045 Title: