On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:30:01AM -0300, Rafael David Tinoco wrote: > Okay, > > Do we have a map on components being kept for i386 and their > dependencies?
The full list of things we're keeping (with rationale) is: https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/germinate-output/i386.focal/i386+build-depends this is the output from germinate that specifically shows which binaries we keep and why. > I ask you this because of the following situation: I > could mark the pacemaker/all/i386 as a badtest. It would solve the > migration problem BUT then, when investigating, I see that: > pacemaker-resource-agents package (present in amd64 and i386 repos) > depends on: This is an architecture: all package. We don't filter arch: all packages out of i386, and we do not require them to be installable on i386 (since the use case for i386 is cross-installing i386 libs on amd64). If an Arch: all package is in the build-dependency closure for other packages that we are building on i386, then and only then do we require that it's installable. > (c)rafaeldtinoco@clusterx32:~$ apt-cache policy resource-agents > resource-agents:amd64: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 1:4.4.0-1ubuntu1 > Version table: > 1:4.4.0-1ubuntu1 500 > 500 http://br.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu focal/main amd64 Packages > > which is currently unavailable for i386. My doubt is: should we ask > "resource-agents" to be included back in i386 then ? OR should we try > to get rid of pacemaker in i386 ? I'm not entirely sure why it is > being kept while resource-agents was removed... that is why I ask. No, neither of those things, per the above. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
