Simon McVittie dixit:
>I was not aware of any mips* buildds still on 4.9 (Debian 9 kernel). The
>only mips family architecture listed on buildd.debian.org is mips64el, for
I think 4.9 is some mipsel buildds. Shortly after the discussion,
which I’m attaching as I don’t know where it’s otherwise ar
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 01:30:55 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> The reason for the regression is probably that /dev/pts/ptmx on the host
> has permissions 000, making it inaccessible (despite being functionally
> equivalent to /dev/ptmx which is available to everyone).
Yes, it seems to be this. I'v
Simon McVittie dixit:
>was rather recent at that time, but hopefully we no longer have any
>machines that are running Debian 8 kernels...
The varios MIPS buildds run 4.19 and some even 4.9 kernels
(AFAIHH due to hardware/patch constraints), which has led
to problems (e.g. I had to disable klibc b
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 00:59:30 +0100, Jessica Clarke wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2024, at 00:23, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I was unable to reproduce this build failure
...
> > There must presumably be something different about how sbuild-createchroot
> > and schroot are configured or invoked on the affect
On 20 Aug 2024, at 00:23, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> I'm using Thorsten's regression report in #983423 as my representative
> sample of a package that regressed with schroot 1.6.13-4, because mksh
> builds much more quickly than gcc-14, but I suspect that the same would
> apply equally to Adrian's
Hi Simon,
thanks for testing.
>I'm using Thorsten's regression report in #983423 as my representative
>sample of a package that regressed with schroot 1.6.13-4, because mksh
>builds much more quickly than gcc-14
(You can add mksh-firstbuilt to DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS so it doesn’t build
and test binar
I'm using Thorsten's regression report in #983423 as my representative
sample of a package that regressed with schroot 1.6.13-4, because mksh
builds much more quickly than gcc-14, but I suspect that the same would
apply equally to Adrian's regression report in #856877: the important
factor is proba
Simon McVittie dixit:
>> as well as open("/dev/tty", O_RDWR, 0)
>
>Asserting that /dev/tty is the correct device node and has appropriate
>permissions should cover that.
Totally not, unfortunately: it only works when it actually has a ctty.
>> and later F_DUPFD and F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC fcntl
>
>T
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 18:25:38 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> It also requires and accesses /dev/tty, it doesn’t just
> do isatty on stdio.
That's a fact about the base chroot (as supplied by sbuild-createchroot
or whatever else) rather than a fact about any of the device nodes that
the 1.6.13-4
Simon McVittie dixit:
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 16:27:24 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> mksh actually does things inside script(1) that use the tty
>
>For the purposes of having a test-case for schroot that doesn't require
>mksh, perhaps a good approximation to this would be asserting that
>tty(1)
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 16:27:24 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> mksh actually does things inside script(1) that use the tty
For the purposes of having a test-case for schroot that doesn't require
mksh, perhaps a good approximation to this would be asserting that
tty(1) from coreutils exits success
Simon McVittie dixit:
>On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 at 23:44:57 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> On three buildds, mksh FTBFS already because the whole
>> /dev/ptmx and /dev/pts stuff is malfunctioning again
>
>Which buildds? Are you referring to -ports builds
>https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pk
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 at 23:44:57 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On three buildds, mksh FTBFS already because the whole
> /dev/ptmx and /dev/pts stuff is malfunctioning again
Which buildds? Are you referring to -ports builds
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mksh&arch=powerpc&ver=59c-3
13 matches
Mail list logo
