Your message dated Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:09:12 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#746967: buildd.debian.org: d-i daily builds happen
with unsigned code from alioth
has caused the Debian Bug report #746967,
regarding buildd.debian.org: d-i daily builds happen with unsigned code from
alioth
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
746967: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746967
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: buildd.debian.org
Severity: normal
So apparently nobody cared to document this issue over the past few
*years*, and people like to bitch about it on #debian-buildd on a
regular fashion instead. Let's address at least the first point with
this bug report.
I think I already proposed pushing d-i master to some other machine
with less liberal access than alioth's. Would that help? If so, which
machine? dillon? Would pulling from there over https help? Be
sufficient? Otherwise, what else?
Very much not amused,
KiBi.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2014-09-11 22:49, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 03:04:46PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> writes:
> > > I think I already proposed pushing d-i master to some other machine
> > > with less liberal access than alioth's. Would that help? If so, which
> > > machine? dillon? Would pulling from there over https help? Be
> > > sufficient? Otherwise, what else?
> >
> > I think the buildds building stuff for the offical archive should only
> > do that. This includes not building for other archives (ports) or daily
> > images for d-i (no matter the source).
> >
> > Of course there needs to be a solution for the daily d-i images.
> >
> > Maybe they could be built on dedicated buildds that are not building
> > packages for the main archive? Though that would require more hardware.
> >
> > Or run the daily d-i build as a job on the porter boxes?
>
> If we choose this solution, here is a quick and dirty patch against
> di-autobuild to do that. It's basically changing the hardcoded paths
> and call to schroot. There is probably more fixes/cleanup to do, but
> it's just a proof of concept to show this solution works without
> additional privilege on the porterboxes. Note that I haven't tried the
> upload part, but I guess it's just a matter of having the right packages
> installed (if not already the case).
>
> We probably want to have a dedicated d-i account for that on the
> porterbox. Also we have only one amd64/i386 porterbox, and the current
> script doesn't support that, but that should be easy to test.
The d-i builds for all official architectures have been moved to the
porterboxes, which means that none of the DSAed build daemons run
the d-i builds anymore.
I am therefore closing this bug.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[email protected] http://www.aurel32.net
--- End Message ---
