On 2021-03-21 12:15, Philipp Kern wrote: > 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.
Thanks for doing that change that fully makes sense. I have done the same change on arm-conova-03 which is also IPv6-only. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net