Re: Bug#985556: flatpak/1.2.5-0+deb10u4 FTBFS on i386
- To: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>
- Cc: Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>, 985556@bugs.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org, team@security.debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#985556: flatpak/1.2.5-0+deb10u4 FTBFS on i386
- From: Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 22:33:16 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] YFkNHBjVpLrpl9As@aurel32.net>
- Mail-followup-to: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>, 985556@bugs.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org, team@security.debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 32be849b-56b5-0b14-e350-bd7f0276b826@philkern.de>
- References: <161619051361.523449.1059749963960799629.reportbug@eldamar.lan> <161619051361.523449.1059749963960799629.reportbug@eldamar.lan> <YFU999MOAnG90iEs@momentum.pseudorandom.co.uk> <YFWvbemlvIkdxjta@eldamar.lan> <[🔎] YFXraADVpvDCAZjK@momentum.pseudorandom.co.uk> <[🔎] 32be849b-56b5-0b14-e350-bd7f0276b826@philkern.de>
On 2021-03-21 12:15, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 20.03.21 13:32, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 at 09:16:45 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:12:39AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> >>> Could x86-conova-01.debian.org be an IPv6-only buildd?
> > ...
> >>> Or, if not that, could it be the case that this buildd is firewalled or
> >>> otherwise restricted such that connections from the build to a test
> >>> server listening on an arbitrary high port number on the loopback
> >>> interface will fail?
> >>
> >> JFTR, this might indeed be the case. I gave it back a couple of times
> >> and building on x86-conova-01.debian.org failed. The last one got
> >> picked on buildd-x86-grnet-01 which now seems to have built.
> >
> > If we now have buildds that are more restrictive or limited than
> > the buildds that were used at the time stable was frozen, then
> > it would probably be good if it was possible to arrange for only
> > testing/unstable/experimental packages to be built on those buildds,
> > with stable updates built on buildds that more closely resemble the ones
> > they were originally tested on - otherwise we'll get random build
> > regressions.
>
> The buildd is IPv6-only. I'm somewhat torn given that we have enough
> buildd coverage that a give-back would likely solve the problem. At the
> same time you can't avoid a particular buildd either. So I concur, as
> much as it hurts me in this day and age, that we should at least
> temporarily disable stable/oldstable builds on the IPv6-only buildds.
>
> I have commented out stretch and buster (and their corresponding
> security and backports suites) on x86-conova-01 for now. I'll definitely
> leave bullseye on, though. Not sure if there's another IPv6-only buildd
> lingering around.
Thanks for doing that change that fully makes sense. I have done the
same change on arm-conova-03 which is also IPv6-only.
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: