[Debian-ha-maintainers] Comments regarding pacemaker_1.1.8+git20121009-1_amd64.changes

[Martin Gerhard Loschwitz]

Hello again,

Am 06.03.2013 um 13:47 schrieb Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar at debian.org>:

> On 03/06/2013 13:12, Martin Gerhard Loschwitz wrote:
>> Am 20.10.2012 um 11:37 schrieb Luca Falavigna <ftpmaster at debian.org>:
>>> We're holding it due to a potential transition which would affect some reverse
>>> dependencies. As Wheezy is frozen, Release Team asked us to refrain from
>>> processing packages which introduce unplanned transitions, as this could delay
>>> the Wheezy release even further.
>>> 
>> So what's the status on this? that was 3.5 months ago and Linux-HA development
>> has almost completely come to a stop in Debian meanwhile; the Pacemaker 1.1.7
>> package has a security issue (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=700923)
>> that needs fixing.
> 
> Well, wheezy isn't released yet...
> 
> Having 1.1.8 in NEW doesn't stop you from uploading a newer 1.1.7
> package that includes the security fix to unstable (having 1.1.8 in
> unstable would make this no longer possible).
> 
Okay, I think we should chose a completely different approach then. Can you REJECT 
the current package out of NEW please so that I can prepare an updated 1.1.7 for Un-
stable and carry 1.1.8 in experimental until we see Wheezy being done?

>> Quite frankly, I am not completely sure that I understand what "transition" you are 
>> talking about; to the best of my knowledge, there are some packages depending on 
>> Pacemaker (mostly anything related to DLM) but the stack as it currently is in 
>> wheezy is very much "done" and I don't see how updating Pacemaker in Unstable
>> would change that.
> 
> Any package that depends on the pacemaker libraries would no longer be
> able to get fixes targeted at wheezy via unstable (as they would pick up
> a dependency on the new shared library packages).
> 
See above. 

> Ansgar

Best regards
Martin