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://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-sru/britney/hints-ubuntu- disco/revision/3469 ...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. -- 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 go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pcs/+bug/1826045/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
