setup-translators breaks schroot chroot removal
Hello, 02schroot.diff [0] patch to get schroot work do bind-mount /dev, /servers, /proc and additional pathnames, which get umounted when session terminates. Problem is about /proc and running setup-translators (e.g. upgrading hurd). It re-sets up bindmounted /proc: Start a chroot session. - 4 2 ? 0:02.65 /hurd/proc root20 5 - 0:00.18 /hurd/procfs -c root 1660 1 - 0:00.01 /hurd/firmlink /proc Run setup-translator -K. Then on session end, bindmount correctly gets umounted but a new procfs makes chroot removal fail: - 4 2 ? 0:02.75 /hurd/proc root20 5 - 0:00.22 /hurd/procfs -c root 2453 5 - 0:00.00 /hurd/procfs -c E: 05file: rm: cannot remove '/var/lib/schroot/unpack/gg0-file00/proc': Device or resource busy How to fix it? on setup-translators or on schroot side? [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2014/09/msg00011.html -- G..e -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CABcaWC1=9nm-frOyhOP8eQX-tbxPHOmAEvisVArq=cba7wm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Time to change the debian-ports "list"?
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 06:39:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >Hi folks, > >I believe the existing debian-ports setup (as an exploder pointing to >all the different port lists) is not working well at all. It's a >confusing setup to many people, which leads to lots of cross-list >noise that's probably not warranted. Some of the traffic is also >clearly meant to be discussing the debian-ports setup itself rather >than individual ports, and that's also off-topic for those ports that >are in the main archive. So, I propose: > > * Remove the confusion: turn debian-ports into a separate *normal* > mailing list, announce it and let people subscribe to it as they > see fit normally. This would be specifically for "discussions about > ports.debian.org and architectures hosted there". > > * Explicitly do *not* add another exploder to replace the old > address: instead, *if* we want something to cover this use case, > add a new list that interested people can subscribe to. Maybe > "debian-cross-ports" or "debian-architectures" or something. Please > feel free to suggest a better name! If such a list were to be set > up, we could/should encourage existing architecture porters to sign > up there too. > >Thoughts? Any dissenting opinions? Listmasters - are you happy to change things like I propose? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Armed with "Valor": "Centurion" represents quality of Discipline, Honor, Integrity and Loyalty. Now you don't have to be a Caesar to concord the digital world while feeling safe and proud. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140910150520.go24...@einval.com
Re: Time to change the debian-ports "list"?
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 06:39:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >Hi folks, > > > >I believe the existing debian-ports setup (as an exploder pointing to > >all the different port lists) is not working well at all. It's a > >confusing setup to many people, which leads to lots of cross-list > >noise that's probably not warranted. Some of the traffic is also > >clearly meant to be discussing the debian-ports setup itself rather > >than individual ports, and that's also off-topic for those ports that > >are in the main archive. So, I propose: > > > > * Remove the confusion: turn debian-ports into a separate *normal* > > mailing list, announce it and let people subscribe to it as they > > see fit normally. This would be specifically for "discussions about > > ports.debian.org and architectures hosted there". > > > > * Explicitly do *not* add another exploder to replace the old > > address: instead, *if* we want something to cover this use case, > > add a new list that interested people can subscribe to. Maybe > > "debian-cross-ports" or "debian-architectures" or something. Please > > feel free to suggest a better name! If such a list were to be set > > up, we could/should encourage existing architecture porters to sign > > up there too. > > > >Thoughts? > > Any dissenting opinions? > > Listmasters - are you happy to change things like I propose? Could you please (technically) summarize what needs to be done from listmaster side? Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140910154907.ga20...@lisa.snow-crash.org
Re: Time to change the debian-ports "list"?
Alexander Wirt dixit: >Could you please (technically) summarize what needs to be done from >listmaster side? 1. Remove whatever debian-ports@l.d.o is right now 2. Create a new debian-ports@l.d.o mailing list which works just like the other regular lists 3. Announce the new debian-ports@l.d.o so that people can subscribe to it; document that there is no longer an address to reach *all* ports but that people should eMail the individual ports’ lists (and cross-post if needed, but only to the amount needed), and that the new debian-ports@l.d.o instead is a mailing list for discussion about a) debian-ports.org infrastructure b) porting Debian in general c) questions related to setting up a Debian port, including wanna-build, buildd, etc. Thanks, //mirabilos -- >> Why don't you use JavaScript? I also don't like enabling JavaScript in > Because I use lynx as browser. +1 -- Octavio Alvarez, me and ⡍⠁⠗⠊⠕ (Mario Lang) on debian-devel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1409101858240.4...@herc.mirbsd.org
