On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:33:28PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:36:33AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:34:20PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > Except the two mipsel buildds here - well, who cares anyways? > > > > I generated keys for all buildds on my laptop back then. But then other > > people are also approaching me with "hey, I think something broke, can you > > have a look" instead of insulting me. > > > > > I would be happy with going on with 0.60.0 unless there are issues why > > > we need to use 0.61.0 - and I think I said so in the IRC channel more > > > than once. That would have saved us as well the issues that we have > > > with lenny hosts plus buildd-0.61, and also the user env not being > > > defined anymore. Stability is some value in running a core service. > > > > True enough. There was also a solution for the Lenny hosts that could've > > been incorporated into the package? I wonder why that didn't happen. > > I'm still not entirely sure what happened here. Ah, I think I've found it. It's commit a3e57d6c which explicitly removes those files. So all we were missing was transitioning the chroot configuration to using "script-config=buildd/config". Which needs to be done by DSA in puppet? Or by the buildd admin? IIRC there was an issue with doing this in the postinst. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature