_construction_file (E)
3: setUp() failed
3: - uncaught exception of type std::exception (or derived).
3: - /home/rleigh/schroot-1.6.10/debian/build/test/testdata/config.ex1: File is
not owned by user root
This is a behaviour change or breakage in fakeroot in unstable, from what I can
tell. The sa
> Matthias Klose (2015-02-12):
>> The following tests FAILED:
>> Errors while running CTest
>>2 - sbuild-chroot-chroot (Failed)
>>6 - sbuild-run-parts (Failed)
>> make[2]: *** [test] Error 8
>> Makefile:117: recipe for target 'test' failed
>> make[2]: Leaving directory '/«PKGBUILDD
> On 07/15/2015 05:21 PM, rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
>>> Matthias Klose (2015-02-12):
The following tests FAILED:
Errors while running CTest
2 - sbuild-chroot-chroot (Failed)
6 - sbuild-run-parts (Failed)
make[2]: *** [test] Error 8
Makefile:117: recipe for
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:31:23PM +0200, chris h wrote:
> * rleigh [110510 20:43]:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:55:48AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > > Am 10.05.2011 11:39, schrieb rleigh:
> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:11:20AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:55:48AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 10.05.2011 11:39, schrieb rleigh:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:11:20AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> Am 09.05.2011 23:40, schrieb rleigh:
> >>> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:56:39PM +0200, chris h
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:55:48AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 10.05.2011 11:39, schrieb rleigh:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:11:20AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> Am 09.05.2011 23:40, schrieb rleigh:
> >>> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:56:39PM +0200, chris h
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:11:20AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011 23:40, schrieb rleigh:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:56:39PM +0200, chris h wrote:
> >> with initscripts 2.88dsf-13.5 from exp and initramfs-tools maks/run
> >> there's a new warning dur
t may still attempt to read it.
As soon as mount switches to a symlink for /etc/mtab, it will never
be out of date.
I'll take a look later tonight.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `&
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 06:48:15PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 26, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Testing with initramfs-tools (maks/run) with current unstable shows
> > udev appearing to work correctly with it using /dev/.udev when /run
> > is not present on the hos
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 06:48:15PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 26, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Testing with initramfs-tools (maks/run) with current unstable shows
> > udev appearing to work correctly with it using /dev/.udev when /run
> > is not present on the hos
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:12:49PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 26, rleigh wrote:
>
> > > -mount -t tmpfs -o nodev,noexec,nosuid,mode=0755 none /run
> > > +mount -t tmpfs -o "nosuid,size=20%,mode=0755" tmpfs /run
> Why does /run should not be n
--
This is with udev 168-1. However, I see the above without any changes
to initramfs-tools or initscripts, and this doesn't changes with /run
present in the initramfs or both the initramfs and rootfs, so it's a
separate issue, and so far specific to the VM image.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
hen initramfs-tools is updated and initscripts is not.
Thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 03:37:50PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 19, rleigh wrote:
>
> > (eth0 is configured here after changing the config to force it to use
> > dhcp). Since the interface is already "up", maybe that's the reason
> > the event
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 03:37:50PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 19, rleigh wrote:
>
> > (eth0 is configured here after changing the config to force it to use
> > dhcp). Since the interface is already "up", maybe that's the reason
> > the event
gured here after changing the config to force it to use
dhcp). Since the interface is already "up", maybe that's the reason
the events aren't generated. So I guess the question now is, what's
bringing up the interface before ifupdown does? Could it be udev? Or
something e
ally
obtaining a lease. Since I have
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet dhcp
could it be related to not getting a hotplug event from udev?
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GN
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:50:23PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > > > > Maybe your initramfs was not rebuilt to include the code which
> > > > > mounts /run?
> > > > Why would that be required? /run is mo
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:16:49PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 17, rleigh wrote:
>
> > The tradeoff here is that if /run is present, udev is broken. That
> It is not supposed to, and so far you are the only one who reported this.
> Are you sure that you do not
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:37:27AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Whether or not /run is a tmpfs or not is *irrelevant* to whether or
> > not udev should use it. The choice of filesystem is entirely up to
> > the admin, and while the d
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 06:01:20PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > > Maybe your initramfs was not rebuilt to include the code which
> > > mounts /run?
> > Why would that be required? /run is mounted by mountkernfs,
> > befo
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 03:15:33PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Not sure why udev is broken; it's using both locations from the
> > look of things. Maybe something it needs has been written to
> Maybe your initramfs was not re
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 02:34:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Not sure why udev is broken; it's using both locations from the
> > look of things. Maybe something it needs has been written to
> > one and it's not present i
thing on top. Without the versioned
initscripts dependency, all bets are off, and this breakage is
the consequence.
Example of breakage:
udev 167-2
initscripts 2.88dsf-13.3
(http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/run/sysvinit_2.88dsf-13.3.dsc)
initscripts provides /run, and this is set up during boot:
24 matches
Mail list logo
