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

Bug#901030: some context

Hans-Christoph Steiner writes ("Bug#901030: some context"):
> I agree that there can't be a Restriction for every config under the
> sun.  I'm thinking more like Ian, where there can be some useful chunks
> with a finer grain than "needs isolation".
> I think that autopkgtest will never work well for a lot of packages with
> such a inflexible system for specifying requirements.  What if
> autopkgtest took a more "user generated" approach like gitlab CI
> runners?  That means that anyone can create tags/labels for runners, and
> jobs can specify any label that they require.  Then it is up to the
> people implementing the jobs/runners to make sure that they work.

I'm not sure what you mean.

There is nothing stopping anyone inventing whatever test restriction
labels they like right now.  Except, of course, that no test runner
will provide support for it.

I don't see how this problem can be solved without coordination
between test authors and (as applicable) autopkgtest developers and
virt server developers.

> As for the binfmt_misc module discussion, I know nothing about how that
> works.  If you can fix this issue in the kernel, fine by me.

ISTM that the bug is that the binfmt thing is not properly virtualised
by containers.  We don't have to fix that in the kernel; we could
bodge it by installing binfmt-misc in the host.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: