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

[dgoulet@efficios.com (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>