Re: Progress on t64 transition -> building the installer in sid
Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.cd |
|---|---|
| Organization | Debian |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Roland Clobus <[email protected]> (2024-03-21): > On 21/03/2024 15:58, Cyril Brulebois wrote: […] > The diagram shows nicely that the t64-transition is affecting the > installer, with currently 1 major bottleneck, libpng16-16t64-udeb: > https://d-i.debian.org/dose/graph-unstable-amd64.png Glad you like it, those have been quite useful a very long while back; it's been a while since the last time we had such a huge archive-wide transition… > > Do you have more details? That thing doesn't exist, but libaio.so.1 > > does (different suffix order). > > My bad, I reversed the order when typing. No worries, thanks for confirming. > I've done some basic triaging in the openQA comment: > https://openqa.debian.net/tests/244163#comments > > The installer fails here: > https://openqa.debian.net/tests/244163#step/grub/3 > > Some details are here (/var/log/syslog): > https://openqa.debian.net/tests/244163#step/grub/35 Thanks, that's pvs from lvm2-udeb; for some reason libaio1-udeb got t64-transitioned, and without an lvm2 rebuild, its tools will want the non-t64 version. I'm a bit conflicted about what to do here. At the moment, libaio1-udeb is the only udeb with t64 (at least according to the output of `apt-file search -Iudeb t64`); but a rebuild of the reverse dependencies would be sufficient (and might happen at some point anyway). For the sake of consistency, I think I'm tempted to suggest a revert of the udeb part (it wasn't renamed so there's a contents vs. package name mismatch anyway). > > In any case, there are no reasons to complicate the t64 transition with > > transitioning udebs, so I wouldn't be surprised if “images” (whatever > > they are) built against old udebs would break if newer udebs are pulled > > from the network. > > The images I've spoken of are the daily-built Debian live ISO-images based > on sid. They are built by Jenkins https://jenkins.debian.net/view/live/ OK, but what I meant to say is that the failure mode I was alluding to isn't specific to d-i daily builds, or debian-cd builds, or live builds; that's something that can happen, and might do until things stabilize. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois ([email protected]) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmX8rHsACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSCMkBAAp2a206hOHKa8G6jre/mnCbMQmRLH7sNDPz8lxawEnCUBu1InbHs4xHrR UclHZBiZGulKyHoLKaBcw4Mvde/z87bg+aL382Vfg5CErLJ7Ilo/gvsTlGTvmwNy ucgobATBII/0sySF1uN+3adEnMSHz98AfmwuVpgUk3JOpKTQYFMSdyucpGHtJTu7 Rtoj+Ka/4+R3CKYw1ZnfFBAFiNFalRGlwxyoE7cjl49QACA7GTOT2FrvcrACcFYl SfHTWXdfKXnOxA2/al1pj1O7y+sQAxZs+VN+MMpGbOqwtNXqyr9ZtNmdwratAVM1 uwSHlgdH0qJXrvht+uTL+a0XfuFaKJi7Mljk7tyJW8yn1YXxtG5wkEPF9d7KXcdi l7GEE/K4uRK77brhMHEv/dCM8/JBfDqC4czlm3yMmej5JfJNBbuO3qLzc98vxkJb CfHghiUg7V6X9MzkBfTn2Gb7fC9/a3PseeocZIk0748Fl9E9RaQcjKPBqhcV6vX4 6LIDdTH5nIx6IuVUNL0PtyxuJaa/nh74qVPZYn/D4mO0P4yHQpBY3dBibsgMHw3E +NMUqSynesP/duzM4ua515uxWgXqVJgyBzcLmYo7rQqshMBuQPGGYV0rYwHXvLbT PTPDRe2vgyzrCDgXcZORv2yhzqT9p2i8H7PjGI7r1yBN09PsgR8= =dF/x -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----