From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dgoulet@efficios.com (David Goulet) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:09:38 -0500 Subject: [lttng-dev] LTTng packages in Debian sid out of sync In-Reply-To: <20131113210223.GA6682@shaniqua> References: <630558869.45441.1382211345502.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <856849325.45462.1382211994767.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20131019211009.GA83292@helmut.local> <300817690.45707.1382242504740.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20131020134521.GA97360@helmut.local> <1084047903.45979.1382281219903.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20131020160434.GA2011@helmut.local> <20131103231921.GA6958@shaniqua> <20131112153903.GC7321@thessa> <20131113210223.GA6682@shaniqua> Message-ID: <20131113210938.GC7694@dalia> On 13 Nov (16:02:23), Jon Bernard wrote: > * David Goulet wrote: > > On 03 Nov (18:19:21), Jon Bernard wrote: > > > * Jon Bernard wrote: > > > > * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Jon Bernard" > > > > > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" > > > > > > Cc: "St?phane Graber" , "Alexandre Montplaisir" , > > > > > > 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: