Re: testing security uploads to trixie-security

[Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org>]

Hi,

On 2025-06-07 11:48, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 07/06/2025 08:28, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Hi
> > On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 09:33:26PM +0000, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 09:20:12PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > > > Dear security team,
> > > > 
> > > > Like last cycle [1] I'm asking you to test that the next security suite is
> > > > working as intended. In our checklist [2] it's mentioned to coordinate with
> > > > you an upload to trixie-security to confirm the build happens as expected.
> > > > The checklist goes on to suggest a check that also a package needing signing
> > > > works.
> > > > 
> > > > During the last cycle some issues were found, one being that the archive
> > > > didn't allow uploads (IIUC). Maybe it's worth checking by ftp-master ahead
> > > > of time if that's the case now too (hence the CC).
> > > > 
> > > > Paul
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2023/03/msg00072.html
> > > > [2]
> > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/ReleaseCheckList/TrixieCheckList
> > > 
> > > Sure! If the dak infrastructre is ready, I can prepare a trixie-security upload
> > > for the open issues in src:libcoap3.
> > 
> > Alternative proposal if we want as well the testing of the signing
> > service: I have a 6.12.32-1 pending next, how about uploading the
> > "noop" linux/6.12.31-1 for trixie-security < 6.12.32-1 unstable/trixie
> > and let all the part checking?
> 
> Sounds good.

Thanks for doing this test. It appeared that the riscv64 buildds were 
misconfigured, and while the package got build successfully, it ended up 
in the wrong upload queue, and got rejected on fasolo. This is now 
fixed, the package got reupload to suchon, and seems to have ended up in
unchecked on seger.

Regards
Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                     http://aurel32.net