redhat-cluster/libdlm + lvm + perl transition

[Dominic Hargreaves]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:56:41PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> [adding redhat-cluster and lvm maintainers to thread. This discussion
> is about trying to start the perl 5.22 transition, which has been
> 'about to happen' since August - so obviously those of us who care
> about that are quite keen to see it happen sooner rather than later]
> 
> [take two with fixed addresses; please ignore the previous versions
> of this message]
> 
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:14:20PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 13/12/15 13:43, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > > As I already mentioned, redhat-cluster currently FTBFS, and has done
> > > since August, so I don't think we should block on that.
> > 
> > We can't remove it from testing as lvm2 depends on it, so this really is a blocker.
> 
> Ah, this is unfortunate (and it's especially unfortunate that we didn't
> spot this blocking back in August..). It doesn't look like fixing
> those[1] FTBFS bugs is easy, especially given that the redhat-cluster
> package is quite a way behind where upstream are (and upstream have
> completely reorganised these packages (as best I can tell as someone
> who is not at all familiar with them).
> 
> >From [2] it appears that work is underway to fix all this, by including
> libdlm as a separate package. Presumably at this point lvm2 would not
> depend on redhat-cluster and it could be removed from testing?
> 
> As a more immediate fix - can the HA team comment on whether libccs-perl
> has any value? If not then perhaps that should just be dropped from
> the redhat-cluster package ASAP (its description[3], not to mention
> its popcon of 3, implies it could be dropped without grave consequence).

Just to add - of course, since redhat-cluster FTBFS, this would have
to be done by the release team manually removing (just) libccs-perl from
testing. Is this feasible?

Thanks,
Dominic.