[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Jon Bernard]

* Jon Bernard <jbernard at debian.org> wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> > > Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> > > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > > 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.

Cheers,

-- 
Jon

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the updates. Did you manage to get the upgrade path from older lttng versions to work, or do users still need to uninstall the old package manually ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>, "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre
> Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>, lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2013 6:19:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync
> 
> * Jon Bernard <jbernard at debian.org> wrote:
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> > > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> > > > Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir"
> > > > <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> > > > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > > > 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Jon
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Jon Bernard]

* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> Hi Jon,
> 
> Thanks for the updates. Did you manage to get the upgrade path from
> older lttng versions to work, or do users still need to uninstall the
> old package manually ?

I'm working on the upgrade packages now.  I also just noticed a build
failure on armel[1] for lttng-tools.  It could be a debian-specific
problem in the compiler/toolchain, but I haven't had a chance to look
into it yet.  Let me know if you have any thoughts about this.

[1]: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ltt-control&arch=armel&ver=2.3.0-1&stamp=1383525831

-- 
Jon

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:21:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync
> 
> * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jon,
> > 
> > Thanks for the updates. Did you manage to get the upgrade path from
> > older lttng versions to work, or do users still need to uninstall the
> > old package manually ?
> 
> I'm working on the upgrade packages now.

Great!

> I also just noticed a build
> failure on armel[1] for lttng-tools.  It could be a debian-specific
> problem in the compiler/toolchain, but I haven't had a chance to look
> into it yet.  Let me know if you have any thoughts about this.

We've already hit this one:

https://bugs.lttng.org/issues/640

It seems to be a still open gcc bug:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> [1]:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ltt-control&arch=armel&ver=2.3.0-1&stamp=1383525831
> 
> --
> Jon
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[David Goulet]

On 03 Nov (18:19:21), Jon Bernard wrote:
> * Jon Bernard <jbernard at debian.org> wrote:
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> > > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> > > > Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> > > > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > > > 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

Thanks!
David

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Jon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lttng-dev mailing list
> lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 620 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20131112/e3cb06a0/attachment.pgp>

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Yannick Brosseau]

On 11/10/13 10:29, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
>> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
>> Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
>> lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:21:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync
>>
>> * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Jon,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the updates. Did you manage to get the upgrade path from
>>> older lttng versions to work, or do users still need to uninstall the
>>> old package manually ?
>> I'm working on the upgrade packages now.
> Great!
>
>> I also just noticed a build
>> failure on armel[1] for lttng-tools.  It could be a debian-specific
>> problem in the compiler/toolchain, but I haven't had a chance to look
>> into it yet.  Let me know if you have any thoughts about this.
> We've already hit this one:
>
> https://bugs.lttng.org/issues/640
>
Yes, I've hit it in the fedora packages.
I've simply disabled the hardening Fedora option, so this temporary fix
might need another way to do it in debian:
(What it does is removing the -fPIE flag from the build option on arm)

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/lttng-tools.git/commit/?id=a9d92b43548ec807b3b5485be092711c4c97f835

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Jon Bernard]

* Yannick Brosseau <yannick.brosseau at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/13 10:29, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> >> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> >> Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> >> lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> >> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:21:50 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync
> >>
> >> * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Jon,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the updates. Did you manage to get the upgrade path from
> >>> older lttng versions to work, or do users still need to uninstall the
> >>> old package manually ?
> >> I'm working on the upgrade packages now.
> > Great!
> >
> >> I also just noticed a build
> >> failure on armel[1] for lttng-tools.  It could be a debian-specific
> >> problem in the compiler/toolchain, but I haven't had a chance to look
> >> into it yet.  Let me know if you have any thoughts about this.
> > We've already hit this one:
> >
> > https://bugs.lttng.org/issues/640
> >
> Yes, I've hit it in the fedora packages.
> I've simply disabled the hardening Fedora option, so this temporary fix
> might need another way to do it in debian:
> (What it does is removing the -fPIE flag from the build option on arm)
> 
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/lttng-tools.git/commit/?id=a9d92b43548ec807b3b5485be092711c4c97f835

Yep, I'll have to do the same thing - should be easy enough.

I've finished the ust upgrade packages, I need only to test the possible
scenarios to make sure all is well and I can upload.  And then I'll fix
the arm issue.

Cheers,

-- 
Jon

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Jon Bernard]

* David Goulet <dgoulet at efficios.com> wrote:
> On 03 Nov (18:19:21), Jon Bernard wrote:
> > * Jon Bernard <jbernard at debian.org> wrote:
> > > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> > > > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> > > > > Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> > > > > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > > > > 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] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[David Goulet]

On 13 Nov (16:02:23), Jon Bernard wrote:
> * David Goulet <dgoulet at efficios.com> wrote:
> > On 03 Nov (18:19:21), Jon Bernard wrote:
> > > * Jon Bernard <jbernard at debian.org> wrote:
> > > > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> > > > > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> > > > > > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > > > > > 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.

Awesome Jon, thanks!

David

> 
> -- 
> Jon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 620 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20131113/3c45f9dd/attachment-0001.pgp>

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Jon Bernard]

* Jon Bernard <jbernard at debian.org> wrote:
> * Yannick Brosseau <yannick.brosseau at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/10/13 10:29, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> > >> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> > >> Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> > >> lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > >> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:21:50 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync
> > >>
> > >> * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> > >>> Hi Jon,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the updates. Did you manage to get the upgrade path from
> > >>> older lttng versions to work, or do users still need to uninstall the
> > >>> old package manually ?
> > >> I'm working on the upgrade packages now.
> > > Great!
> > >
> > >> I also just noticed a build
> > >> failure on armel[1] for lttng-tools.  It could be a debian-specific
> > >> problem in the compiler/toolchain, but I haven't had a chance to look
> > >> into it yet.  Let me know if you have any thoughts about this.
> > > We've already hit this one:
> > >
> > > https://bugs.lttng.org/issues/640
> > >
> > Yes, I've hit it in the fedora packages.
> > I've simply disabled the hardening Fedora option, so this temporary fix
> > might need another way to do it in debian:
> > (What it does is removing the -fPIE flag from the build option on arm)
> > 
> > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/lttng-tools.git/commit/?id=a9d92b43548ec807b3b5485be092711c4c97f835
> 
> Yep, I'll have to do the same thing - should be easy enough.
> 
> I've finished the ust upgrade packages, I need only to test the possible
> scenarios to make sure all is well and I can upload.  And then I'll fix
> the arm issue.

I think I have fixed the upgrade path, packages have been uploaded and
fingers are crossed.  If this works then it leaves only the arm build
failure - which is cake.

-- 
Jon

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Jon Bernard]

* Jon Bernard <jbernard at debian.org> wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> > > Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> > > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > > 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.

I think I've got the UST upgrade packages in good shape and I uploaded
a new lttng-tools to fix the armel build earlier today.  So, hopefully
by just waiting a bit things should be in good shape and migrate into
testing in early December (~10 days from now).  At the moment, 2.3.0 is
complete in unstable (sid).

-- 
Jon

[lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>, "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre
> Montplaisir" <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>, lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:57:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync
> 
> * Jon Bernard <jbernard at debian.org> wrote:
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com> wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jon Bernard" <jbernard@debian.org>
> > > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
> > > > Cc: "St?phane Graber" <stgraber at ubuntu.com>, "Alexandre Montplaisir"
> > > > <alexmonthy at voxpopuli.im>,
> > > > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > > > 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.
> 
> I think I've got the UST upgrade packages in good shape and I uploaded
> a new lttng-tools to fix the armel build earlier today.  So, hopefully
> by just waiting a bit things should be in good shape and migrate into
> testing in early December (~10 days from now).  At the moment, 2.3.0 is
> complete in unstable (sid).

Great! Thanks for the updates! :)

Mathieu

> 
> --
> Jon
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com