On 13 Nov 2024, at 18:20, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 11:13:22 +0000, Jessica Clarke wrote:
>> Uh, I meant to refer to schroot’s new */dev/pts* behaviour. Have you
>> tried the trixie/sid version? I expect you’ll see similar issues.
> 
> xorg-server_2:21.1.14-2 builds successfully for me in a trixie/sbuild
> version of schroot invoked non-interactively, and built successfully on
> a riscv64 buildd (which I believe is relatively up-to-date).
> 
> Writing to /proc/self/fd/2 and /dev/stderr is also working OK for me in
> an interactive schroot on the porterbox ricci, with schroot 1.6.13-5,
> which appears to be using a new instance of /dev/pts per chroot. In
> my case, /proc/self/fd/2 points to /dev/pts/0, which doesn't actually
> exist in /dev/pts as seen from the chroot - but opening it works anyway,
> albeit possibly only because /dev/console as seen from the chroot is
> the same device ("test /proc/self/fd/2 -ef /dev/console" succeeds).
> 
> Sorry, I'm not able to set up an environment to try various possible
> code paths interactively right now: I don't routinely run pbuilder or
> cowbuilder (precisely because it is not what the official buildds use),
> and xorg-server is not my top priority.

Interesting, echo test > /proc/self/fd/2 does indeed work for me within
cowbuilder login, which is surprising* but consistent with your schroot
observations. So more investigation needed, including to see if I see
the same failure building xorg-server or if it’s specific to the
submitter’s environment.

Jess

* Although not really now I think about it, given it needs to work for
  e.g. pipes, and those will never have a valid path there

>> This isn’t really a new problem, it’s just another case
>> similar to redirecting to a file that lives outside the chroot, for
>> which neither chroot tool currently has a general solution.
> 
> Please try with:
> https://salsa.debian.org/xorg-team/xserver/xorg-server/-/merge_requests/14
> which hopefully addresses whatever is the failing scenario?
> 
>    smcv

Reply via email to