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. Kind regards and thanks Philipp Kern
