Re: Daily d-i builds fail on armhf and armel with segfault in mklibs
Cyril Brulebois (2016-09-30): > Steve McIntyre (2016-09-13): > > AFAICS it's also failing on i386, so it's not arch specific: > > > > https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_cdrom_gtk.log > > > > ... > > # HACK ALERT: X.Org modules are excluded from the scan as mklibs > > # is unable to find symbols provided by the /usr/bin/Xorg binary > > mklibs-copy -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/usr/lib -L > > ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu \ > > -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/udeblibs -v -d ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/lib > > --root=./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree \ > > -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/usr/lib/cdebconf/frontend \ > > -ltext.so -lgtk.so -lnewt.so \ > > `find ./tmp/cdrom_gtk -type f -a \( -perm /0111 -o -name '*.so' -o > > -name '*.so.*' \) | \ > > grep -v udeblibs | grep -v 'usr/lib/xorg/modules/.*\.so'` > > INFO: Using /lib/ld-linux.so.2 as dynamic linker > > Segmentation fault > > Command failed with status 139 : mklibs-readelf -R > > ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/sbin/blkid > > ... > > As of today, d-i FTBFS on all these archs: armel armhf i386 mips mipsel. > > It would be nice to have a fix soon-ish, as the glibc upgrade make the > current/last d-i release fail to work (depending on the installation > image used). > > I'll try and have a look during the week-end but no promises (also, this > issue might be too tricky for me). Filed/fixed https://bugs.debian.org/839264 KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Daily d-i builds fail on armhf and armel with segfault in mklibs
Steve McIntyre (2016-09-13): > AFAICS it's also failing on i386, so it's not arch specific: > > https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_cdrom_gtk.log > > ... > # HACK ALERT: X.Org modules are excluded from the scan as mklibs > # is unable to find symbols provided by the /usr/bin/Xorg binary > mklibs-copy -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/usr/lib -L > ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu \ > -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/udeblibs -v -d ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/lib > --root=./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree \ > -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/usr/lib/cdebconf/frontend \ > -ltext.so -lgtk.so -lnewt.so \ > `find ./tmp/cdrom_gtk -type f -a \( -perm /0111 -o -name '*.so' -o > -name '*.so.*' \) | \ >grep -v udeblibs | grep -v 'usr/lib/xorg/modules/.*\.so'` > INFO: Using /lib/ld-linux.so.2 as dynamic linker > Segmentation fault > Command failed with status 139 : mklibs-readelf -R > ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/sbin/blkid > ... As of today, d-i FTBFS on all these archs: armel armhf i386 mips mipsel. It would be nice to have a fix soon-ish, as the glibc upgrade make the current/last d-i release fail to work (depending on the installation image used). I'll try and have a look during the week-end but no promises (also, this issue might be too tricky for me). KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Daily d-i builds fail on armhf and armel with segfault in mklibs
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:41:14PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote: >Hello everybody, > >since 2016-09-05, the daily d-i builds on armhf and armel are >incomplete. The builds fail in the library reduction step with a >segfault during the mklibs run: > >-8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<- >mklibs-copy --ldlib=/lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3 -L ./tmp/hd-media/tree/usr/lib -L >./tmp/hd-media/tree/usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf \ >-L ./tmp/hd-media/udeblibs -v -d ./tmp/hd-media/tree/lib > --root=./tmp/hd-media/tree \ >-L ./tmp/hd-media/tree/usr/lib/cdebconf/frontend \ >-ltext.so -lnewt.so \ >`find ./tmp/hd-media -type f -a \( -perm /0111 -o -name '*.so' -o > -name '*.so.*' \) | \ > grep -v udeblibs | grep -v 'usr/lib/xorg/modules/.*\.so'` >INFO: Using /lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3 as dynamic linker >Segmentation fault >Command failed with status 139 : mklibs-readelf -R >./tmp/hd-media/tree/sbin/blkid >-8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<- > >I probably won't have time to look into this before next week, >but perhaps somebody else has some time to spare for debugging >this? I can reproduce the problem locally, so it's not something >related to the hardware of the buildhost. AFAICS it's also failing on i386, so it's not arch specific: https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_cdrom_gtk.log ... # HACK ALERT: X.Org modules are excluded from the scan as mklibs # is unable to find symbols provided by the /usr/bin/Xorg binary mklibs-copy -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/usr/lib -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu \ -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/udeblibs -v -d ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/lib --root=./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree \ -L ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/usr/lib/cdebconf/frontend \ -ltext.so -lgtk.so -lnewt.so \ `find ./tmp/cdrom_gtk -type f -a \( -perm /0111 -o -name '*.so' -o -name '*.so.*' \) | \ grep -v udeblibs | grep -v 'usr/lib/xorg/modules/.*\.so'` INFO: Using /lib/ld-linux.so.2 as dynamic linker Segmentation fault Command failed with status 139 : mklibs-readelf -R ./tmp/cdrom_gtk/tree/sbin/blkid ... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll
Re: Daily d-i builds fail on armhf and armel with segfault in mklibs
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:36:21PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote: > CCing Clint Adams (fakeroot maintainer) in the hope that he might > be able to provide some further insight. I don't have access to my ARM devices this week but if I did I would try what's described in the gdb section of /usr/share/doc/fakeroot/DEBUG .
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
Philipp Kern wrote: > It'd make sense to Cc d-admin on this. FWIW, I do recall bad memory issues > with zee, it's currently down to 16G of RAM, too. As a point of comparison, the d-i armel builds are ran on a machine with 3 gb of disk, 128 mb of ram (no swap), and 1 cpu. :) d-i daily builds are not particularly expensive. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:05:40PM +, Jurij Smakov wrote: > Fair enough. However, the machine has 32 CPUs and 32G of RAM, so even > while used as a buildd, significant amounts of resources are probably > just sitting idle. I see that it only has 72G of disk though (2x72G > disks in RAID-1 config), however we could probably solicit donation of > the disks needed or even convince DPL to throw some money at it. Hence > the questions: > 1. Is there any virtualization solution on zee which would allow us to > run more than a single buildd on it? > 2. If disks are the bottleneck, what are the part numbers for them? I > guess that if we would get another two, we could simply make another > RAID-1 volume out of that, to not interfere too much with existing > setup? > 3. Who is the right person to talk to about arranging various > reconfigurations like that? It'd make sense to Cc d-admin on this. FWIW, I do recall bad memory issues with zee, it's currently down to 16G of RAM, too. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:16:18AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:23:29 +, Jurij Smakov wrote: > > > That got me thinking... We had this T2K box (zee) donated a while ago > > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2009/08/msg9.html, for > > example), and it shows up as a buildd on a machine page, however I > > don't really remember ever seeing a package built on it. Can you > > please check what's its state and whether it can be used for these > > builds? > > > Last I knew, zee was being used as a buildd for the prospective sparc64 > port. > http://buildd.debian-ports.org/fetch.php?&pkg=scid&ver=1%3A4.2.2.cvs20110111-1&arch=sparc64&stamp=1294809847&file=log&as=raw > suggests that's still true. Fair enough. However, the machine has 32 CPUs and 32G of RAM, so even while used as a buildd, significant amounts of resources are probably just sitting idle. I see that it only has 72G of disk though (2x72G disks in RAID-1 config), however we could probably solicit donation of the disks needed or even convince DPL to throw some money at it. Hence the questions: 1. Is there any virtualization solution on zee which would allow us to run more than a single buildd on it? 2. If disks are the bottleneck, what are the part numbers for them? I guess that if we would get another two, we could simply make another RAID-1 volume out of that, to not interfere too much with existing setup? 3. Who is the right person to talk to about arranging various reconfigurations like that? Best regards, -- Jurij Smakov ju...@wooyd.org Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110123220540.ga4...@droopy.oc.cox.net
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
Hi Excerpts from Axel Beckert's message of Mit Jan 12 10:47:19 +0100 2011: > So how much disk space is needed for building the daily images, why > does it have to be on a buildd (i.e. does it suffice to throw hardware > at it) and how new/fast does the sparc to be? The d-i team would like to have all these builds on buildds. This is to avoid problems due to builds stopping because the person doing the builds loosing interest. So I would prefer the buildd solution to yet another single DD run solution. The builds themselves don't need a lot of disk space and cpu power. The main part is downloading udebs and building images out of them. There is no compilation involved. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
Excerpts from Philipp Kern's message of Mit Jan 12 02:46:24 +0100 2011: > Hi, > > am Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:53:59AM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > > Gaudenz Steinlin (11/01/2011): > > > As all my attempts to find someone willing to setup d-i daily builds > > > on a sparc buildd [1] failed. I'm going to give up now and will not > > > bother you again until some steps up to do the necessary work or > > > provide me with buildd access. I added the following note to the d-i > > > daily builds overview page: Due to the lack of porter and buildd > > > admin interest there are currently no daily builds for the SPARC > > > architecture. These builds will be reenable as soon as someone finds > > > the time to do the necessary buildd setup. > > > > > > I would also be willing to do the neccessary setup myself if someone > > > provides me with the necessary access to a sparc buildd. > > > > So, again, it's not about lack of interest, it's about lack of > > time. As Cyril Brulebois was the only one to even answer, I inferred that the other persons behind sparc@b.d.o and all the subscribers on debian-sparc don't seem to be interested. My bad. After having more information I have now reworded the text to: Due to the lack of buildd suitable buildd machine there are currently no daily builds for the SPARC architecture. These builds will be reenabled as soon as as a suitable machine is available. It was never my intention to offend anyone or to spread "FUD". Sorry if you got this impression. > > > > Also, you could have pinged debian-wb-team@. I believe aba did most of > > the d-i autobuilding stuff, so he might have some clue to share. I've > > added this list to the loop. I was not aware that the right contact point for this kind of question would be debian-wb-team@l.d.o. I thought that the correct contact point would be the sparc buildd admins because the setup needs access to the buildd and I expected that the persons having this kind of access to be the buildd admins. I thought that the wb-team is involved with managing the wb database which is not used for the d-i daily builds. > > and I did tell on #d-boot the following on Nov 13 2010: > > [...] > 15:27 < trave11er> ok, we didn't get any reply from stappers, so sparc > dailies still have the old kernels, afaict > [...] > 15:31 < otavio> trave11er: buildd people were going to put sparc into it > 15:31 < otavio> trave11er: dunno if it has been done > 15:31 < otavio> adsb: ^? > [...] > 15:33 < phil> otavio: "were going to" is quite untrue. There still isn't a > bug > report, and I did report the result of my investigation, i.e. there's no space > on the only LVMed sparc buildd we have. > 15:37 < otavio> phil: I didn't recall about the space issue > 15:37 < otavio> phil: indeed > > So meh, whatever. To my knowledge that's still true. We currently don't have > the capacities and we admitted that. Furthermore not asking -wb-team might > not give you answers, indeed. Sorry if I missed something along the > way. Sorry that I missed this along the way. This is the first time I hear of the space issue. IMHO IRC is not a good medium to communicate important information to a team. It's to easy to forget something and the information never reaches all the involved persons. As I'm very rarely on IRC I missed this communication. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
Hi, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > Due to the lack of porter and buildd admin interest there are currently no > daily > builds for the SPARC architecture. These builds will be reenable as soon as > someone finds the time to do the necessary buildd setup. I just ran into this yesterday when debbugging grub on Sparc: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609733 > I would also be willing to do the neccessary setup myself if someone > provides me with the necessary access to a sparc buildd. Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > I would also be willing to do the neccessary setup myself if someone > > provides me with the necessary access to a sparc buildd. > > So, again, it's not about lack of interest, it's about lack of time. ... and the lack of enough disk space on a Sparc buildd: Philipp Kern wrote: > 15:27 < trave11er> ok, we didn't get any reply from stappers, so sparc > dailies still have the old kernels, afaict Does http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609733 suffice as bug report? > 15:33 < phil> otavio: "were going to" is quite untrue. There still isn't a > bug > report, and I did report the result of my investigation, i.e. there's no space > on the only LVMed sparc buildd we have. > 15:37 < otavio> phil: I didn't recall about the space issue > 15:37 < otavio> phil: indeed > > So meh, whatever. To my knowledge that's still true. We currently don't have > the capacities and we admitted that. Furthermore not asking -wb-team might > not give you answers, indeed. Sorry if I missed something along the way. So how much disk space is needed for building the daily images, why does it have to be on a buildd (i.e. does it suffice to throw hardware at it) and how new/fast does the sparc to be? I do have a bunch of Sparcs at home which are not in use yet, but most of them are Ultra 5 and 10 which should be around 15 years old or older. I also have one dual processor sparc built by Tritec which I haven't setup yet, so I don't know the details about processor speed -- but I got it for free and it has/had Woody installed according to the previous owner, so it can't be very new. (I also have some more 32-bit Sparcs, but I know that _they_ won't help. ;-) If any of them could help I'll see what I can do (which is also mostly a function of time.)-: Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE `-| 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110112094719.gh12...@sym.noone.org
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:23:29 +, Jurij Smakov wrote: > That got me thinking... We had this T2K box (zee) donated a while ago > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2009/08/msg9.html, for > example), and it shows up as a buildd on a machine page, however I > don't really remember ever seeing a package built on it. Can you > please check what's its state and whether it can be used for these > builds? > Last I knew, zee was being used as a buildd for the prospective sparc64 port. http://buildd.debian-ports.org/fetch.php?&pkg=scid&ver=1%3A4.2.2.cvs20110111-1&arch=sparc64&stamp=1294809847&file=log&as=raw suggests that's still true. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 02:46:24AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > Hi, > > am Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:53:59AM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > > Gaudenz Steinlin (11/01/2011): > > > As all my attempts to find someone willing to setup d-i daily builds > > > on a sparc buildd [1] failed. I'm going to give up now and will not > > > bother you again until some steps up to do the necessary work or > > > provide me with buildd access. I added the following note to the d-i > > > daily builds overview page: Due to the lack of porter and buildd > > > admin interest there are currently no daily builds for the SPARC > > > architecture. These builds will be reenable as soon as someone finds > > > the time to do the necessary buildd setup. > > > > > > I would also be willing to do the neccessary setup myself if someone > > > provides me with the necessary access to a sparc buildd. > > > > So, again, it's not about lack of interest, it's about lack of time. > > > > Also, you could have pinged debian-wb-t...@. I believe aba did most of > > the d-i autobuilding stuff, so he might have some clue to share. I've > > added this list to the loop. > > and I did tell on #d-boot the following on Nov 13 2010: > > [...] > 15:27 < trave11er> ok, we didn't get any reply from stappers, so sparc > dailies still have the old kernels, afaict > [...] > 15:31 < otavio> trave11er: buildd people were going to put sparc into it > 15:31 < otavio> trave11er: dunno if it has been done > 15:31 < otavio> adsb: ^? > [...] > 15:33 < phil> otavio: "were going to" is quite untrue. There still isn't a > bug > report, and I did report the result of my investigation, i.e. there's no space > on the only LVMed sparc buildd we have. > 15:37 < otavio> phil: I didn't recall about the space issue > 15:37 < otavio> phil: indeed > > So meh, whatever. To my knowledge that's still true. We currently don't have > the capacities and we admitted that. Furthermore not asking -wb-team might > not give you answers, indeed. Sorry if I missed something along the way. That got me thinking... We had this T2K box (zee) donated a while ago (http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2009/08/msg9.html, for example), and it shows up as a buildd on a machine page, however I don't really remember ever seeing a package built on it. Can you please check what's its state and whether it can be used for these builds? Best regards, -- Jurij Smakov ju...@wooyd.org Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110112072328.ga3...@droopy.oc.cox.net
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
Hi, am Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:53:59AM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > Gaudenz Steinlin (11/01/2011): > > As all my attempts to find someone willing to setup d-i daily builds > > on a sparc buildd [1] failed. I'm going to give up now and will not > > bother you again until some steps up to do the necessary work or > > provide me with buildd access. I added the following note to the d-i > > daily builds overview page: Due to the lack of porter and buildd > > admin interest there are currently no daily builds for the SPARC > > architecture. These builds will be reenable as soon as someone finds > > the time to do the necessary buildd setup. > > > > I would also be willing to do the neccessary setup myself if someone > > provides me with the necessary access to a sparc buildd. > > So, again, it's not about lack of interest, it's about lack of time. > > Also, you could have pinged debian-wb-t...@. I believe aba did most of > the d-i autobuilding stuff, so he might have some clue to share. I've > added this list to the loop. and I did tell on #d-boot the following on Nov 13 2010: [...] 15:27 < trave11er> ok, we didn't get any reply from stappers, so sparc dailies still have the old kernels, afaict [...] 15:31 < otavio> trave11er: buildd people were going to put sparc into it 15:31 < otavio> trave11er: dunno if it has been done 15:31 < otavio> adsb: ^? [...] 15:33 < phil> otavio: "were going to" is quite untrue. There still isn't a bug report, and I did report the result of my investigation, i.e. there's no space on the only LVMed sparc buildd we have. 15:37 < otavio> phil: I didn't recall about the space issue 15:37 < otavio> phil: indeed So meh, whatever. To my knowledge that's still true. We currently don't have the capacities and we admitted that. Furthermore not asking -wb-team might not give you answers, indeed. Sorry if I missed something along the way. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SPARC daily d-i builds
Gaudenz Steinlin (11/01/2011): > As all my attempts to find someone willing to setup d-i daily builds > on a sparc buildd [1] failed. I'm going to give up now and will not > bother you again until some steps up to do the necessary work or > provide me with buildd access. I added the following note to the d-i > daily builds overview page: Due to the lack of porter and buildd > admin interest there are currently no daily builds for the SPARC > architecture. These builds will be reenable as soon as someone finds > the time to do the necessary buildd setup. > > I would also be willing to do the neccessary setup myself if someone > provides me with the necessary access to a sparc buildd. So, again, it's not about lack of interest, it's about lack of time. Also, you could have pinged debian-wb-t...@. I believe aba did most of the d-i autobuilding stuff, so he might have some clue to share. I've added this list to the loop. KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
SPARC daily d-i builds
Hi As all my attempts to find someone willing to setup d-i daily builds on a sparc buildd [1] failed. I'm going to give up now and will not bother you again until some steps up to do the necessary work or provide me with buildd access. I added the following note to the d-i daily builds overview page: Due to the lack of porter and buildd admin interest there are currently no daily builds for the SPARC architecture. These builds will be reenable as soon as someone finds the time to do the necessary buildd setup. I would also be willing to do the neccessary setup myself if someone provides me with the necessary access to a sparc buildd. Gaudenz [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2010/12/msg8.html -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > This would certainly make fixing stuff easier for me. Then I could do > that myself. What are the rules to add someone to this group? Added now :-D -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=nftbmktqsxjreqxavpz7vuumuamq+8topo...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Son Nov 07 07:29:17 +0100 2010: > Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org): > > > > OK, I finally got around to add some mail support to the daily > > > aggregator script. It only sends a mail if there are old or failed > > > builds. See the attached patch. > > > > Ping, any comments on this? If the patch looks OK I can commit it to > > the SVN repo, but it needs someone with d-i group access (Otavio, > > Christian, ...) to actually activate it on d-i.debian.org. > > > I think it's OK to commit, then I'll activate the > script. Alternatively, we could ask you to be added to the d-i > group..:-) This would certainly make fixing stuff easier for me. Then I could do that myself. What are the rules to add someone to this group? Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org): > > OK, I finally got around to add some mail support to the daily > > aggregator script. It only sends a mail if there are old or failed > > builds. See the attached patch. > > Ping, any comments on this? If the patch looks OK I can commit it to > the SVN repo, but it needs someone with d-i group access (Otavio, > Christian, ...) to actually activate it on d-i.debian.org. I think it's OK to commit, then I'll activate the script. Alternatively, we could ask you to be added to the d-i group..:-) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Hi Excerpts from Gaudenz Steinlin's message of Son Okt 31 16:49:39 +0100 2010: > Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Die Sep 14 06:55:28 +0200 2010: > > Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): > > > Christian PERRIER wrote: > > What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these > > daily builds. I'd be fine to do it myself on a regular basis if > > there's a way to get these status by mail (offline work most of the > > time during weeks). This is what I do with builds that are run on my > > own laptop, which already helps in catching build failures that happen > > on all arches (or on i386 only). > > OK, I finally got around to add some mail support to the daily > aggregator script. It only sends a mail if there are old or failed > builds. See the attached patch. Ping, any comments on this? If the patch looks OK I can commit it to the SVN repo, but it needs someone with d-i group access (Otavio, Christian, ...) to actually activate it on d-i.debian.org. Gaudenz > > There are still a few improvements possible: > - The current output only has a link to the log of the failed build. > I could also add the last lines of the build log. Do you think this > might be helpful? > - There are still some old builds. I'm still looking for someone to > document the current autobuilder setup, so that it would become > possible for others to investigate the cause for this and to add the > relevant logs to the overview page. AFAIK currently only Luk knows > how this works and it's not documented anywhere... (Luk, could you > give me some pointers?) > > Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Hi Andi Many thanks, that was exactly the information I was looking for. Excerpts from Andreas Barth's message of Mit Nov 03 07:52:32 +0100 2010: > * Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org) [101103 01:37]: > > This is indeed suboptimal. :-( Would it be possible to give some > > (ideally more than one person to not create bottlenecks) persons from > > the d-i team access to the buildds where d-i daily builds are built so > > they can investigate these issues themself? > > The problem is that that kind of access to the buildds is root-level > access. Now that's not something we're too keen on handing out. > > > Can someone from the buildd team shed some more light on this. If this > > is documented somwhere and I just didn't find the right place you can > > also just point me to the docs. I'm also happy to just read the > > scripts actually triggering the builds. > > http://lists.debian.org/20100331165134.ga19...@mails.so.argh.org > and followups should contain all the necessary information. I assumed > that that's documented somewhere within the d-i information pool. OK, I can now see the relevant scripts and the pieces are quite clear. If I see this correctly builldd-forced-command is executed on d-i.debian.org as a forced command in authorized_keys. While buildscript is executed on the buildd. How is the build script triggered on the buildd? Is this a cronjob or is this integrated into the buildd schduling infrastructure? What do you think about moving these two scripts into the debian-installer repository alongside all other scripts that generate the daily build webpages and stuff? At least the buildd-forced-command script is already in the same directory on d-i.d.o but is the only one not in version control there (it's not identical to the version in the git repository...). > If there are improvements to our scripts, please feel free to send > them to us. Especially usually I assume that even non-working builds > should send an log to d-i.d.o. Currently the hppa buildd (last builds from lafayette) does not send any new logs since Jun 07. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
* Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org) [101103 01:37]: > This is indeed suboptimal. :-( Would it be possible to give some > (ideally more than one person to not create bottlenecks) persons from > the d-i team access to the buildds where d-i daily builds are built so > they can investigate these issues themself? The problem is that that kind of access to the buildds is root-level access. Now that's not something we're too keen on handing out. > Can someone from the buildd team shed some more light on this. If this > is documented somwhere and I just didn't find the right place you can > also just point me to the docs. I'm also happy to just read the > scripts actually triggering the builds. http://lists.debian.org/20100331165134.ga19...@mails.so.argh.org and followups should contain all the necessary information. I assumed that that's documented somewhere within the d-i information pool. If there are improvements to our scripts, please feel free to send them to us. Especially usually I assume that even non-working builds should send an log to d-i.d.o. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101103065232.gs15...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
[ Context for debian-wb-team: This thread started because not all autobuilder setups for d-i are currently working properly and I tried to figure out why but got stuck because I could not figure out how these build are triggered. ] Hi Excerpts from Luk Claes's message of Son Okt 31 18:53:37 +0100 2010: > On 10/31/2010 04:49 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > > - There are still some old builds. I'm still looking for someone to > > document the current autobuilder setup, so that it would become > > possible for others to investigate the cause for this and to add the > > relevant logs to the overview page. AFAIK currently only Luk knows > > how this works and it's not documented anywhere... (Luk, could you > > give me some pointers?) Note for debian-wb-team: The problem with these builds is that they don't fail in the usual way where the buildd sends a log of the failed build ready for inspection, but that they just don't upload any new builds to d-i.debian.org and there is to my knowledge no log whatsoever to show the reason of this. > > Note that I don't have access anymore to any buildd (was retracted > without any notice) so I'm not very interested in pursuing why things > don't work anymore... This is indeed suboptimal. :-( Would it be possible to give some (ideally more than one person to not create bottlenecks) persons from the d-i team access to the buildds where d-i daily builds are built so they can investigate these issues themself? > > Note also that it doesn't seem that any are still being done the way I > originally set them up as none are from luk@ anymore... Can someone from the buildd team shed some more light on this. If this is documented somwhere and I just didn't find the right place you can also just point me to the docs. I'm also happy to just read the scripts actually triggering the builds. Are the builds scheduled by a cron job or is there something else scheduling the builds? > > On the buildds there was a separate chroot used to do the daily builds. > The daily builds were done like 'documented' in the repository of d-i, > nothing special. What do you mean by the "documented" way? Does it run some/all of the build targets in instaler/build or does it use the installer/debian/rules build-images target? Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
On 10/31/2010 04:49 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Die Sep 14 06:55:28 +0200 2010: >> Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): >>> Christian PERRIER wrote: > - There are still some old builds. I'm still looking for someone to > document the current autobuilder setup, so that it would become > possible for others to investigate the cause for this and to add the > relevant logs to the overview page. AFAIK currently only Luk knows > how this works and it's not documented anywhere... (Luk, could you > give me some pointers?) Note that I don't have access anymore to any buildd (was retracted without any notice) so I'm not very interested in pursuing why things don't work anymore... Note also that it doesn't seem that any are still being done the way I originally set them up as none are from luk@ anymore... On the buildds there was a separate chroot used to do the daily builds. The daily builds were done like 'documented' in the repository of d-i, nothing special. On d-i.debian.org the builds are aggregated and old ones cleaned (for the ones on buildds); and statistics prepared (for all of them). Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ccdad21.8060...@debian.org
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Die Sep 14 06:55:28 +0200 2010: > Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): > > Christian PERRIER wrote: > What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these > daily builds. I'd be fine to do it myself on a regular basis if > there's a way to get these status by mail (offline work most of the > time during weeks). This is what I do with builds that are run on my > own laptop, which already helps in catching build failures that happen > on all arches (or on i386 only). OK, I finally got around to add some mail support to the daily aggregator script. It only sends a mail if there are old or failed builds. See the attached patch. There are still a few improvements possible: - The current output only has a link to the log of the failed build. I could also add the last lines of the build log. Do you think this might be helpful? - There are still some old builds. I'm still looking for someone to document the current autobuilder setup, so that it would become possible for others to investigate the cause for this and to add the relevant logs to the overview page. AFAIK currently only Luk knows how this works and it's not documented anywhere... (Luk, could you give me some pointers?) Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ 0001-Send-report-to-debian-boot-if-builds-fail-or-are-old.patch Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
On 09/22/2010 06:39 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org): > >> IMHO the most prominent gap is that there is no indication if a buildd >> fails to upload a log to d-i.debian.org at all. Like it is the case for >> several architectures since Aug 17th. >> >> I could not find any information about how the process of scheduling d-i >> builds on buildds works. Thus I don't know where to start to improve the >> status reporting there. I would really appreciate if someone could >> provide a pointer to existing documentation or scripts driving this >> process. > > > Luk Claes has been the person setting this up on the buildds. So, I > think having him in the loop is the best action. Luk? The mips* buildds were changed, the promess was made to have the d-i builds moving to the new buildds, but due to several reasons that did not happen up to now. The hppa ones just failed miserably at the time and I did not get them working again, though I did not look since quite some time. The powerpc and s390 ones probably still work, though do not happen currently. I'll have a look when I'm back from VAC. Regarding the CD images it's probably a matter of changed machines (key issue). It does not currently happen differently on the buildd than on personal machines btw, it's just a separate environment on the buildd where the d-i builds happen as documented in the d-i repository. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c9a61df.90...@debian.org
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org): > IMHO the most prominent gap is that there is no indication if a buildd > fails to upload a log to d-i.debian.org at all. Like it is the case for > several architectures since Aug 17th. > > I could not find any information about how the process of scheduling d-i > builds on buildds works. Thus I don't know where to start to improve the > status reporting there. I would really appreciate if someone could > provide a pointer to existing documentation or scripts driving this > process. Luk Claes has been the person setting this up on the buildds. So, I think having him in the loop is the best action. Luk? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Hi Otavio and others Sorry, but I fear I need a little bit more handholding on this. There are too many things I faild to figure out on myself... On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 20:02 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > Excerpts from Joey Hess's message of Mit Sep 15 21:26:06 +0200 2010: > >> Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > >> > I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages > >> > for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about > >> > how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where > >> > I can find the relevant scripts. > >> > >> Are you familiar with the existing status page at > >> http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/build-logs.html? > > > > It depends on your definition of familiar. I just browsed around the > > scripts in /org/d-i.debian.org/scripts on ravel (aka d-i.debian.org). > > I found out how the status page is built, but the more interesting > > question why so many arches just stopped uploading any logs since > > around 08/17 is not answered there. > > > > The uploading of these images seems to be triggered from the outside. > > > > Another problem seems to be that the updateing of the webpage is out > > of sync at least with the building of the armel images. So it still > > marks the build_iop32x_netboot as failed although the build log behind > > the "failed" link is the log of a later build which did not fail at > > all. Is there a reason why this does not point to the timestamped > > directory (eg. > > http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/armel/images/20100914-23:25/overview.log) > > ? > > As Joey has said we do have a status page however as you noticed it > has gabs that could be filled if you are willing to. Please provide > the patches you believe could be useful for it. This is indeed a quite > useful way of helping us. IMHO the most prominent gap is that there is no indication if a buildd fails to upload a log to d-i.debian.org at all. Like it is the case for several architectures since Aug 17th. I could not find any information about how the process of scheduling d-i builds on buildds works. Thus I don't know where to start to improve the status reporting there. I would really appreciate if someone could provide a pointer to existing documentation or scripts driving this process. OTOH there are certainly improvements possible to the current page. Do you have any whishlist items or a TODO file? >From Christians mail I guess want feature request are failure reports by email. The best way to enable this is probably to send them to a PTS keyword where interested ppl can subscribe. AFAIK the only way to send custom mails to PTS keyword is to send it to sourcepackage_...@packages.qa.debian.org and these mails go to all people subscribed to the cvs keyword. Do you think it would be acceptable to send the reports to this address or do you think we would need another mechanism? AFAIK it's not possible to define custom keywords for the PTS. Gaudenz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1285100702.22357.28.ca...@tigerente.durcheinandertal.local
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Hello, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > Excerpts from Joey Hess's message of Mit Sep 15 21:26:06 +0200 2010: >> Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: >> > I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages >> > for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about >> > how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where >> > I can find the relevant scripts. >> >> Are you familiar with the existing status page at >> http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/build-logs.html? > > It depends on your definition of familiar. I just browsed around the > scripts in /org/d-i.debian.org/scripts on ravel (aka d-i.debian.org). > I found out how the status page is built, but the more interesting > question why so many arches just stopped uploading any logs since > around 08/17 is not answered there. > > The uploading of these images seems to be triggered from the outside. > > Another problem seems to be that the updateing of the webpage is out > of sync at least with the building of the armel images. So it still > marks the build_iop32x_netboot as failed although the build log behind > the "failed" link is the log of a later build which did not fail at > all. Is there a reason why this does not point to the timestamped > directory (eg. > http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/armel/images/20100914-23:25/overview.log) > ? As Joey has said we do have a status page however as you noticed it has gabs that could be filled if you are willing to. Please provide the patches you believe could be useful for it. This is indeed a quite useful way of helping us. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinpfxfhr8nft3mkmr-aecbbn-lseojgd6sfy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Excerpts from Joey Hess's message of Mit Sep 15 21:26:06 +0200 2010: > Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages > > for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about > > how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where > > I can find the relevant scripts. > > Are you familiar with the existing status page at > http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/build-logs.html? It depends on your definition of familiar. I just browsed around the scripts in /org/d-i.debian.org/scripts on ravel (aka d-i.debian.org). I found out how the status page is built, but the more interesting question why so many arches just stopped uploading any logs since around 08/17 is not answered there. The uploading of these images seems to be triggered from the outside. Another problem seems to be that the updateing of the webpage is out of sync at least with the building of the armel images. So it still marks the build_iop32x_netboot as failed although the build log behind the "failed" link is the log of a later build which did not fail at all. Is there a reason why this does not point to the timestamped directory (eg. http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/armel/images/20100914-23:25/overview.log) ? Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages > for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about > how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where > I can find the relevant scripts. Are you familiar with the existing status page at http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/build-logs.html? -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Excerpts from Cyril Brulebois's message of Die Sep 14 11:51:02 +0200 2010: > Christian PERRIER (14/09/2010): > > What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these > > daily builds. > > I had that in mind at some point, but I'm currently busy with some > upstream work. Feel free to poke me in some days if you didn't find a > volunteer at that point. I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where I can find the relevant scripts. Or some pointer to where this is documented. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Christian PERRIER (14/09/2010): > What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these > daily builds. I had that in mind at some point, but I'm currently busy with some upstream work. Feel free to poke me in some days if you didn't find a volunteer at that point. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): > Christian PERRIER wrote: > > On the other hand, I think that other daily builds done in Joey Hess' > > home are very safe. Obviously, Joey has proven over years how reliable > > he can be and I don't see urgency to change this. > > Aside from not being in the building where that box is all the time, and > it not coming back up automatically after power failures, and little issues > like that. > > I'd prefer if armel builds were moved to the buildds. OK. Otavio ack'ed my suggestion yesterday on IRC and mentioned he would reping RM's about this (I'm not sure I understand why RM have to be involved for moving D-I builds but there's certainly a reason..:-)) What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these daily builds. I'd be fine to do it myself on a regular basis if there's a way to get these status by mail (offline work most of the time during weeks). This is what I do with builds that are run on my own laptop, which already helps in catching build failures that happen on all arches (or on i386 only). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Christian PERRIER wrote: > On the other hand, I think that other daily builds done in Joey Hess' > home are very safe. Obviously, Joey has proven over years how reliable > he can be and I don't see urgency to change this. Aside from not being in the building where that box is all the time, and it not coming back up automatically after power failures, and little issues like that. I'd prefer if armel builds were moved to the buildds. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Op 20100913 om 22:16 schreef Christian PERRIER: > As I just mentioned on IRC, a few daily builds seem currently non > optimal: > > - s390 builds still point to Frans' home on people.d.o. It's very sad > to say this, of course, but that doesn't exist anymore..:-( > > - sparc builds point to Geert Stappers home and haven't been updated > since July 12th Oops, my check is on the _build_ result I will "upgrade" my check on _upload build_ result. > Could we consider moving these to build daemons just like Luk did for > other arches? If so, Luk you seem to be the more qualified > person. Would you mind having a look at this? > > On the other hand, I think that other daily builds done in Joey Hess' > home are very safe. Obviously, Joey has proven over years how reliable > he can be and I don't see urgency to change this. Geert Stappers signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Status of some daily D-I builds
As I just mentioned on IRC, a few daily builds seem currently non optimal: - s390 builds still point to Frans' home on people.d.o. It's very sad to say this, of course, but that doesn't exist anymore..:-( - sparc builds point to Geert Stappers home and haven't been updated since July 12th Could we consider moving these to build daemons just like Luk did for other arches? If so, Luk you seem to be the more qualified person. Would you mind having a look at this? On the other hand, I think that other daily builds done in Joey Hess' home are very safe. Obviously, Joey has proven over years how reliable he can be and I don't see urgency to change this. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Daily D-I builds on lophos
Hi Bastian, Could you check why there have been no builds since mid November? TIA, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: terminfo files getting installed executable, but how? (was: Failing daily D-I builds?)
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (20/06/2008): > $ sudo aptitude reinstall ncurses-base > $ ls -l /lib/terminfo/*/* > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1481 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/a/ansi > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1502 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cons25 > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1529 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cygwin > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 308 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/d/dumb > [...] Maybe you could provide us with the part of your dpkg.log relative to that particular “aptitude reinstall” run, maybe there are some leads there. You could also strace it, following its childs. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: terminfo files getting installed executable, but how? (was: Failing daily D-I builds?)
On Friday 20 June 2008, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Friday 20 June 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > > > But there should be no reason for these terminfo files to be > > > executable. And if I rebuild debian-installer-utils, they are not. > > > fjp did the last debian-installer-utils upload, and I think his > > > system has executable terminfo files, somehow, since they've crept > > > into the di-utils-terminfo udeb. > > > > $ ls -l /lib/terminfo/*/* > > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1481 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/a/ansi > > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1502 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cons25 > > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1529 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cygwin > > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 308 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/d/dumb > > [...] > > Is there a reason for these files to be world writable ? Doubt there is any, and they are not world writable in the package as you can see in my original mail. That is exactly the question here: how are these files getting from "-rw-r--r--" in the package to "-rwxrwxrwx" on my system? Something seems to be borked, but I've no idea what. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: terminfo files getting installed executable, but how? (was: Failing daily D-I builds?)
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 08:39:09PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > This is very strange. Let's see if the friendly folks on d-devel can help. > > Cheers, > FJP > > On Friday 20 June 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > > But there should be no reason for these terminfo files to be > > executable. And if I rebuild debian-installer-utils, they are not. fjp > > did the last debian-installer-utils upload, and I think his system has > > executable terminfo files, somehow, since they've crept into the > > di-utils-terminfo udeb. > $ ls -l /lib/terminfo/*/* > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1481 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/a/ansi > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1502 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cons25 > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1529 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cygwin > -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 308 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/d/dumb > [...] Is there a reason for these files to be world writable ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
terminfo files getting installed executable, but how? (was: Failing daily D-I builds?)
This is very strange. Let's see if the friendly folks on d-devel can help. Cheers, FJP On Friday 20 June 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > But there should be no reason for these terminfo files to be > executable. And if I rebuild debian-installer-utils, they are not. fjp > did the last debian-installer-utils upload, and I think his system has > executable terminfo files, somehow, since they've crept into the > di-utils-terminfo udeb. $ ls -l /lib/terminfo/*/* -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1481 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/a/ansi -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1502 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cons25 -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1529 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cygwin -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 308 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/d/dumb [...] $ find /lib/terminfo/*/* -type f | xargs sudo chmod a-x $ ls -l /lib/terminfo/*/* -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1481 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/a/ansi -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1502 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cons25 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1529 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cygwin -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 308 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/d/dumb [...] $ sudo aptitude reinstall ncurses-base $ ls -l /lib/terminfo/*/* -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1481 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/a/ansi -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1502 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cons25 -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1529 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/c/cygwin -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 308 2008-06-16 22:40 /lib/terminfo/d/dumb [...] Strange thing is that: $ dpkg -c /var/cache/apt/archives/ncurses-base_5.6+20080614-1_all.deb | \ grep "^[^l].*/[acd]/[acd]" -rw-r--r-- root/root 1481 2008-06-16 22:40 ./lib/terminfo/a/ansi -rw-r--r-- root/root 1502 2008-06-16 22:40 ./lib/terminfo/c/cons25 -rw-r--r-- root/root 1529 2008-06-16 22:40 ./lib/terminfo/c/cygwin -rw-r--r-- root/root 308 2008-06-16 22:40 ./lib/terminfo/d/dumb So, it looks like the ncurses-base postinst is somehow to blame. Only it does not have a postinst... /me is confused Is dpkg doing something weird here maybe? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Uploads of daily D-I builds (was: on .ssh/authorized_keys files)
Op 02-06-2008 om 15:36 schreef Joey Hess: > The better choice is to set up authorized_keys on gluck with your new, > dedicated d-i daily build key, and then ping weasel or another DSA to > symlink it into place in /ssh-keys/ so ssh will actually use it. FWIW /ssh-keys/ is moved to /etc/ssh/userkeys/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uploads of daily D-I builds (was: on .ssh/authorized_keys files)
Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> I guess that makes me a bad candidate for success. :(
To summarize:
Since the openssl compromise, ~/.ssh/authorized_keys is ignored on
gluck. So keys for daily builds have to be put on in a different way.
One choice would be to use the LDAP interface. But this would add the
key to every debian.org machine, not just gluck, which is suboptimal
from a security POV.
The better choice is to set up authorized_keys on gluck with your new,
dedicated d-i daily build key, and then ping weasel or another DSA to
symlink it into place in /ssh-keys/ so ssh will actually use it.
However, this entails setting up an authorized_keys that they are happy
with the security of. For some reason, they seem to want it to be *more*
secure than the keys you'd put in LDAP. Doesn't entirely make sense to
me why, but more security can't hurt, and more security is why we're not
just putting the key in LDAP, so, ok.
So you'll want to follow the examples in /ssh-keys/{vorlon,joeyh,kyle}.
Vorlon is probably the best example; he checked out
svn://svn.debian.org/d-i/trunk/installer/build into ~/d-i, and set up
his authorized_keys like this:
# alpha bi-daily d-i build -- keep 20 images
from="quetzlcoatl.dodds.net",command="~/d-i/d-i-unpack-helper alpha 20"
You can probably get away without the from= if your build system doesn't
have static reverse dns.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Uploads of daily D-I builds (was: on .ssh/authorized_keys files)
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 01:12:09PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:35:58PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > On Friday 30 May 2008, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:08:02PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > > > So basically this is what needs to be done to get uploads for daily > > > > D-I builds working again for remaining architectures. > > > > Does anybody who has a build running want to coordinate that? Maybe > > > > setup a (more) common system for it? > > > > I'm willing to coordinate if that will help. I just emailed weasel to > > > find out what the procedure should be. > > > Great. Note that Joey and Steve (vorlon) have now already gotten this > > done, so you could also ask one of them. > > Main thing is to try to get it done ASAP for all remaining arches. > > Well, for me the only procedure was "ping weasel on IRC"... :) I guess that makes me a bad candidate for success. :( -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Uploads of daily D-I builds (was: on .ssh/authorized_keys files)
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: > Well, for me the only procedure was "ping weasel on IRC"... :) Sure, but he also asked you to make some changes to your SSH key. Having those requirements communicated to others would save weasel having to request and explain the same thing 12 times. Some may also have to make changes in their build system setup. Knowing how to do that could help too. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Uploads of daily D-I builds (was: on .ssh/authorized_keys files)
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:35:58PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Friday 30 May 2008, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:08:02PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > > So basically this is what needs to be done to get uploads for daily > > > D-I builds working again for remaining architectures. > > > Does anybody who has a build running want to coordinate that? Maybe > > > setup a (more) common system for it? > > I'm willing to coordinate if that will help. I just emailed weasel to > > find out what the procedure should be. > Great. Note that Joey and Steve (vorlon) have now already gotten this > done, so you could also ask one of them. > Main thing is to try to get it done ASAP for all remaining arches. Well, for me the only procedure was "ping weasel on IRC"... :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uploads of daily D-I builds (was: on .ssh/authorized_keys files)
On Friday 30 May 2008, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:08:02PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > So basically this is what needs to be done to get uploads for daily > > D-I builds working again for remaining architectures. > > Does anybody who has a build running want to coordinate that? Maybe > > setup a (more) common system for it? > > I'm willing to coordinate if that will help. I just emailed weasel to > find out what the procedure should be. Great. Note that Joey and Steve (vorlon) have now already gotten this done, so you could also ask one of them. Main thing is to try to get it done ASAP for all remaining arches. Cheers, FJP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Uploads of daily D-I builds (was: on .ssh/authorized_keys files)
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:08:02PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > So basically this is what needs to be done to get uploads for daily D-I > builds working again for remaining architectures. > Does anybody who has a build running want to coordinate that? Maybe setup a > (more) common system for it? I'm willing to coordinate if that will help. I just emailed weasel to find out what the procedure should be. Thanks, Stephen > -- Forwarded Message -- > Subject: on .ssh/authorized_keys files > Date: Thursday 29 May 2008 > From: Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The use of ~user/.ssh/authorized_keys files has been disabled since > DSA1571 was announced. While our initial plan was to allow them > again eventually some bad experience with DDs' key handling has > led us to reconsider that intent. > > So ~user/.ssh/authorized_keys will remain disabled. > > If you want to login to debian.org hosts using keys you should send them > to the LDAP as outlined at https://db.debian.org/doc-mail.html>, > which allows us to do at least some quality control. > > Should you need keys only on specific hosts for automated tasks like > updating stuff or syncing files between project machines or similar > we can enable a user editable authorized_keys file for specific users > on specific hosts. Usually we would expect those keys to be limited > to use only from certain hosts (using from="") and limited to > allow execution of only certain commands (using command=" Contact DSA if you have such a case. > > Your sysadmins > --- -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Uploads of daily D-I builds (was: on .ssh/authorized_keys files)
So basically this is what needs to be done to get uploads for daily D-I builds working again for remaining architectures. Does anybody who has a build running want to coordinate that? Maybe setup a (more) common system for it? Cheers, FJP -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: on .ssh/authorized_keys files Date: Thursday 29 May 2008 From: Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of ~user/.ssh/authorized_keys files has been disabled since DSA1571 was announced. While our initial plan was to allow them again eventually some bad experience with DDs' key handling has led us to reconsider that intent. So ~user/.ssh/authorized_keys will remain disabled. If you want to login to debian.org hosts using keys you should send them to the LDAP as outlined at https://db.debian.org/doc-mail.html>, which allows us to do at least some quality control. Should you need keys only on specific hosts for automated tasks like updating stuff or syncing files between project machines or similar we can enable a user editable authorized_keys file for specific users on specific hosts. Usually we would expect those keys to be limited to use only from certain hosts (using from="") and limited to allow execution of only certain commands (using command=" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
m68k/atari: new atari-bootstrap and daily d-i builds
The new atari-bootstrap is in unstable. I'd appreciate it if some atari folks would try it out and make sure it works. If there aren't any problems, then I'd like to apply to have it included in sarge if possible, since it allows more machines to boot. The daily d-i builds [1] are also being built with the new atari- bootstrap for your testing pleasure. [1] <http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/d-i/images-m68k/daily/> Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: "daily" d-i builds
* Matt Kraai | On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 03:55:14PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote: | > It seems that the daily d-i builds aren't so "daily": | | According to the build log[1], there is something wrong with the | Makefile: | | Makefile:224: *** missing separator. Stop. it has been fixed now; I had a conflict in my Makefile. I might miss mails to -boot, though it's one of the lists I try to read closely, so mailing me privately or mentioning it on IRC is a faster and more reliable way to get my attention on such matters as this. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "daily" d-i builds
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 03:55:14PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote: > It seems that the daily d-i builds aren't so "daily": According to the build log[1], there is something wrong with the Makefile: Makefile:224: *** missing separator. Stop. Matt -- Oink! 1. http://people.debian.org/~tfheen/d-i/images/2003-03-18/archive/net.log -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"daily" d-i builds
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello! It seems that the daily d-i builds aren't so "daily": $date; lynx -nolist -dump http://people.debian.org/~tfheen/d-i/images/daily/ Wed Mar 19 15:50:04 EST 2003 Index of /~tfheen/d-i/images/daily NameLast modified Size Description ___ [DIR] Parent Directory18-Mar-2003 15:30 - [ ] cdrom-2880.img 15-Mar-2003 13:23 2.8M [ ] cdrom-initrd.gz 15-Mar-2003 13:23 2.1M [ ] cdrom144-1440.img 04-Mar-2003 13:24 1.4M [ ] cdrom144-initrd.gz 15-Mar-2003 13:23 779k [ ] net-1440.img04-Mar-2003 13:24 1.4M [ ] net-initrd.gz 15-Mar-2003 13:23 808k [ ] vmlinuz 15-Mar-2003 13:23 666k Apache/1.3.26 Server at people.debian.org Port 80 $ Joe Nahmias, DD wannabe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+eNkwKl23+OYWEqURAsqkAJoDd8akrWPL9Ub4jVKyltDlVT6xTQCbBM1g WNLALyTfEYIXu4l0/OkYKY8= =S9pm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
