Your message dated Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:02:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#768618: fixed in pacemaker 1.1.13-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #768618,
regarding pacemaker: FTBFS in jessie: build-dependency not installable:
libqb-dev (>= 0.16.0.real)
to be marked as done.
T
Hello,
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 14:40 +1000, Sam McLeod wrote:
> Any progress on Pacemaker for Jessie - Is there an alternative or do I
> have to downgrade back to Wheezy?
We are working on the stack and expect to be back in business in the
near future.
You can see our progress by looking through t
Any progress on Pacemaker for Jessie - Is there an alternative or do I
have to downgrade back to Wheezy?
I'm surprised to see Jessie was released with so many packages missing.
--
Sam McLeod @s_mcleod[1] | smcleod.net
Links:
1. https://twitter.com/s_mcleod
On 15-04-09 19:25:55, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> I'm not into the deadlines for jessie release but is there still a
> chance to get pacemaker back into the upcoming jessie release?
>
> This is quite a show stopper to ship debian 8 without a working cluster
> stack.
Not an expert on this, but it would
Hi Stefan,
On 09-04-15 19:25, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> I'm not into the deadlines for jessie release but is there still a
> chance to get pacemaker back into the upcoming jessie release?
Short answer is no. That time expired [1] somewhere about one week after
it got removed from jessie, which was on
I'm not into the deadlines for jessie release but is there still a
chance to get pacemaker back into the upcoming jessie release?
This is quite a show stopper to ship debian 8 without a working cluster
stack.
Cheers,
Stefan
> Am 07.02.2015 um 13:24 schrieb Raoul Bhatia :
>
> On 7 February 2015 12:41:30 CET, "ge...@riseup.net" wrote:
> On 15-01-20 15:36:39, Raoul Bhatia wrote:
> I'd also like to know how to get involved on that.
>
> I currently see two possibilities:
>
> a) address the important, release crit
On 7 February 2015 12:41:30 CET, "ge...@riseup.net" wrote:
>On 15-01-20 15:36:39, Raoul Bhatia wrote:
>> I'd also like to know how to get involved on that.
>>
>> I currently see two possibilities:
>>
>> a) address the important, release critical bugs.
>> However, ideally would need someone of th
On 15-01-20 15:36:39, Raoul Bhatia wrote:
> I'd also like to know how to get involved on that.
>
> I currently see two possibilities:
>
> a) address the important, release critical bugs.
> However, ideally would need someone of the old maintainers/uploaders
> (added as CC) to sponsor that.
>
> b
I'd also like to know how to get involved on that.
I currently see two possibilities:
a) address the important, release critical bugs.
However, ideally would need someone of the old maintainers/uploaders
(added as CC) to sponsor that.
b) See if a quick backport will be possible after the rele
Simon Horman writes:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:26:36AM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, here in what it what we tenuously call reality one can observe
>> the following things:
>>
>> 1. Pacemaker broken in Jessie for more than 2 months now.
>> 2. Silence on this bug for more tha
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:26:36AM +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
>
> Well...
>
> Meanwhile, here in what it what we tenuously call reality one can observe
> the following things:
>
> 1. Pacemaker broken in Jessie for more than 2 months now.
> 2. Silence on this bug for more than one month.
>
Well...
Meanwhile, here in what it what we tenuously call reality one can observe
the following things:
1. Pacemaker broken in Jessie for more than 2 months now.
2. Silence on this bug for more than one month.
3. Pacemaker was recently removed from Jessie.
4. The February 5th deadline is rapidl
On 13-12-14 17:40, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Thanks for looking into this. I am already working on a way out of the
> mess, which I'll have time to finish up in the next few days.
I saw that pacemaker now got tagged for auto removal as well. I leave it
up to you then to fix it either way?
> It'
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 04:42:38PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Summary: The current upstream version of pacemaker should not have
> migrated to jessie because it build-dependency (and corresponding
> dependency library) is not high enough in jessie. Either pacemaker
> should be removed from jessie,
Summary: The current upstream version of pacemaker should not have
migrated to jessie because it build-dependency (and corresponding
dependency library) is not high enough in jessie. Either pacemaker
should be removed from jessie, or libqb in sid should be allowed to
migrate (after removal of the k
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 06:57:27PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > sbuild-build-depends-pacemaker-dummy : Depends: libqb-dev (>= 0.16.0.real)
> > but it is not going to be installed
libqb 0.17.0-2 has no chance of migrating until release.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signa
Source: pacemaker
Version: 1.1.10+git20130802-4.1
Severity: serious
Tags: jessie sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20141108 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS in jessie on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in jessie (in a jessie chroot, not a
sid chroot), your package fa
18 matches
Mail list logo
