[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: m68k vs. d-i tc1 -- bummer, help needed

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:04:05AM -0300, Joey Hess wrote:
> Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > Well on my autobuilders buildd has sudo rights. I don't know if this is
> > still policy everywhere or just a holdover. I can switch to a dd, mke2fs
> > scheme, at least for the initrd's destined for 2.2 kernels. I think we're
> > getting out-of-scope for a binNMU though.
> > 
> > What would you prefer?
> I doubt that requiring root on the autobuilders is workable.
> I'm mostly worried about continued maintenance. It's fine if you do a
> bin-NMU for this, but what if I have to release a new version and you're
> not available?
> Is it possible that the recent fixes in genext2fs led to this problem on
> m68k? Or did we just get very unlucky?

I think it's possible that the recent fixes made the problem more
explicit. I had them before, but more random. I think we're a bit
unlucky. I didn't use to have them at all.

Long term I'd like to get genext2fs fixed. Perhaps I need to divert my
d-i development time to that. I'd rather spend it on lowmem, polish,
packaging, and documentation. But hey, whatever it takes.

Short term, perhaps I should do a conditional build where a second set
of images is built if sudo is available? It need only apply to the three
2.2-kernel images. It won't increase the build time much if I base it on
the existing trees.

As for build access when I'm not around (and I'll be hitting vacation 
time later this month), I'd be happy to give accounts on my d-i build box 
to interested dd's. It has both buildd chroots and my daily d-i chroot.



Stephen R. Marenka     If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: