On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 04:47, Salvatore Bonaccorso <car...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 09:49:47PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Mon, 27 May 2024 14:31:37 +0200 Thorsten Leemhuis > > <regressi...@leemhuis.info> wrote: > > > On 27.05.24 14:22, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/autopkgtest/+bug/2056461 > > > > > > > > This has been reported upstream 3 weeks ago, but so far it seems no > > > > action has been taken: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zj0ErxVBE3DYT2Ea@gpd/ > > > > > > Hmmm, that thread is strange, why are David's replies not where they > > are > > > supposed to be? Whatever. The last thing from just a few days ago > > seems > > > to be a inquiry from David to Andrea that was not yet answered > > afaics: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/531994.1716450...@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ > > > > > > Would also help a lot to know if this is a 6.8.y only thing, or > > happens > > > with 6.9 and mainline as well, as 6.8.y will likely be EOLed soon. > > > > That's not available anywhere (in a usable form) so it's a question for > > kernel maintainers. > > > > Salvatore, what's the moreinfo for? Were you not able to reproduce it? > > Just try to run any isolation-machine autopkgtest (eg: src:dpdk) in a > > qem image (eg: built with autopkgtest-build-qemu) and compare unstable > > vs testing. > > The aim for the moreinfo tag is to gather more information on which if > we know it's fixed with 6.9.y or mainline to have an idea why the > above thread might have stalled upstream. > > I think I would ideally have first one 6.8.y version going to testing > and Diederik did work on rebasing already for 6.9.y, so we might move > then to that one with 6.8.y going EOL.
If 6.8 migrates to testing, it will break amd64 debci for unrelated packages for migration tests too. I don't think that's something we want? Paul, wouldn't that qualify as RC?
