On 2024-02-26 20:46:43 [+0100], Guillem Jover wrote: > > > Ignoring stderr could be a workaround, but I'd need to do something as > > > well for the libdpkg code and the perl code calling xz, which will get > > > very annoying. > > > > > > This is also going to get in the way of migrating both xz and dpkg > > > (which seems like would need to be uploaded today for the time64 > > > transition). > > > > > > Or perhaps that warning could be disabled for now in Debian until things > > > are sorted out with upstream? > > > > Falling back to -T1 in order to keep the previous is not an option? > > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean dpkg would > fallback to pass -T1 (maybe you mean -T+1, otherwise we might get > unreproducible output due to switching to single-threaded)? And > fallback on what condition?
Yes. I *think* that error came from the decompress part but I'm not sure. > Ah, I think you mean to pass -T+1 to the xz invocations for the test > suite, right, that could workaround the issue there indeed. Thanks, I > think I'll do that for now. Thank you. > > Let me try to sell this "we move this warning to verbose" to upstream in > > the meantime… > > That would actually be great! > > > > (Had not seen this test suite failure yet, as I've got xz on hold due > > > to the breaks on pristine-tar, but would probably stumble over it > > > during the release process anyway I guess, so thanks for the heads up!) > > > > This poped up on xz debci only armel and armhf. > > Perhaps I'll not see it in my local tree then, but I think the dpkg > failure will at least block xz migration, but thinking about it now, > probably not dpkg's migration. So this might not be blocking for dpkg. > (Sorry if this sounded alarming, but didn't want to add new roadblocks > to the time64 transition from the dpkg side! :D) Understood ;) > Thanks, > Guillem Sebastian
