On 25.11.2024 00:40, Bo YU wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 9:30 PM Preuße, Hilmar <hille42@web.de> wrote:
Hello Bo, Sorry for the very late response!
Yes, correct. This would I expect too. Did the lab maintenance people find some issues + root cause and could eventually solve it?I don't fully understand the question. I can refer to C source code, which gives the unexpected result, i.e. which is able to resolve an unresolvable address. A said: this works only on the riscv64 server running the debci, so this is not a general issue with the riscv64 arch. This is some other kind of "not-working" DNS.Yeah, this is what I want to express. And I believe the issue can be reproduced with some network command like nslookup then I can let lab admin who hosted these riscv64 workers have a look at this. But I will keep this on the TODO list for lab maintenance.
BTW, I am a little surprised that why the latest version of
proftpd-dfsg(1.3.8.b+dfsg-4) not presented in !{amd64, arm64} summary
page on debci[0]?
I do not understand the question. I' sorry!The latest revision of proftp contains a workaround by simply disabling the test. This explains, why the tests work fine for rev. 1.3.8.b+dfsg-3 (!riscv64) and works fine since 1.3.8.b+dfsg-4 for all arches.
Hilmar
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature