Philipp Kern writes:
> On 10/04/2017 05:50 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> I'm not sure how it could be more explicit:
>> For packages in the main archive, no required targets may attempt
>> network access.
> And then again it should allow for network access (including
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 at 17:09:13 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 04:03:22PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > * link-local
>
> For which purpose?
telepathy-salut (an implementation of a link-local multicast chat
protocol) has build-time tests in which the test and
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 at 17:31:45 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I always assumed bug reports like this [1] [2] to be caused by failure
> in buildd, apparently these builds are not from the official buildd.
>
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=710940
> [2]
On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 04:03:22PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Yeah, this part should be written more explicitly.
> >From what I've seen, usual confusion is:
> * external traffic on port 53 (people sometimes argue DNS "is not network
> access")
… to the resolver configured in /etc/resolv.conf
On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 01:50:30PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 10/04/2017 05:50 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03 2017, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> >> It might be a good idea to make policy more explicit about downloads
> >> during build.
> > I'm not sure how it could be more explicit:
> >
On വ്യാഴം 05 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 08:35 രാവിലെ, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>
>> I regularly get FTBFS when tests that require network access fail on
>> buildds. So I'm not sure what is the basis of your assertion.
>
> Do you have an example build log
On 10/04/2017 05:50 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03 2017, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> It might be a good idea to make policy more explicit about downloads
>> during build.
> I'm not sure how it could be more explicit:
> For packages in the main archive, no required targets may attempt
>
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 12:39:42 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ian Jackson dijo [Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 01:29:16PM +0100]:
> > I have also heard of packages which do "apt-get source" in their rules
> > files.
[..]
> > Of course it would be better if we had a more declarative way of
> > saying "this
Le jeudi, 5 octobre 2017, 13.29:16 h CEST Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I have also heard of packages which do "apt-get source" in their rules
> files.
debian-installer-netboot-images does a similar thing, but it's more of a shell
re-implementation of a trust chain check:
Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Bug#877212: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#877212:
node-d3-color: B-D npm not available in testing"):
> Ian Jackson dijo [Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 01:29:16PM +0100]:
> > I think that both of these activities are reasonable things to do.
> > Th
Ian Jackson dijo [Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 01:29:16PM +0100]:
> I have also heard of packages which do "apt-get source" in their rules
> files.
>
> I think that both of these activities are reasonable things to do.
> They don't violate the self-containedness of Debian. If they are
> technically
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Bug#877212: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#877212:
node-d3-color: B-D npm not available in testing"):
> As far as I'm aware, they currently don't. Policy says it would be valid
> if they did, and some derivatives and unofficial rebuilds actually do
>
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I regularly get FTBFS when tests that require network access fail on
> buildds. So I'm not sure what is the basis of your assertion.
Do you have an example build log illustrating this?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Sean Whitton writes:
> Hello Jérémy,
>
> On Tue, Oct 03 2017, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>
>> It might be a good idea to make policy more explicit about downloads
>> during build.
>
> I'm not sure how it could be more explicit:
>
> For packages in the main archive, no
On ബുധന് 04 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 06:28 വൈകു, Simon McVittie wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, they currently don't. Policy says it would be valid
> if they did, and some derivatives and unofficial rebuilds actually do
> so, but the "real" Debian buildds allow network access because otherwise
>
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 at 17:05:03 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> As these packages are always uploaded as binary included and never built
> on the buildd (as buildds already prohibit network access during build).
As far as I'm aware, they currently don't. Policy says it would be valid
if they did,
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:05:03PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Because the shown folly is only in theory and it is never in practice.
> As these packages are always uploaded as binary included and never built
> on the buildd (as buildds already prohibit network access during build).
> If I
On ബുധന് 04 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 02:07 വൈകു, Philip Hands wrote:
> The problem seems to be that Praveen reads that prohibition as implying
> that it is totally OK to do this when not in main.
>
> This strikes me as equivalent to reading:
>
> All men are mortal,
> Socrates is a man,
>
> and
Hello Jérémy,
On Tue, Oct 03 2017, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> It might be a good idea to make policy more explicit about downloads
> during build.
I'm not sure how it could be more explicit:
For packages in the main archive, no required targets may attempt
network access.
--
Sean Whitton
Jérémy Lal dijo [Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 07:46:43PM +0200]:
> It might be a good idea to make policy more explicit about downloads during
> build.
I completely agree. This led me to look at #813471 ("network access to
the loopback device should be allowed"), and... Well, it seems to set
the stage to
2017-10-03 19:34 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Wolf :
> Pirate Praveen dijo [Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 12:12:54PM +0530]:
> > > I am completely with Sean here; I read the following messages, and am
> > > happy a better resolution was found. But, FWIW, I'll support Sean's
> > > interpretation -
21 matches
Mail list logo