On 2021-04-25 10:39, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 10:14:51 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 08:11:48 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > > On 25-04-2021 01:55, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > It appears that all the failures are related to containers. I have been
>
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 10:14:51 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 08:11:48 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > On 25-04-2021 01:55, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > It appears that all the failures are related to containers. I have been
> > > able to reproduce the issue with a bullseye
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 08:11:48 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 25-04-2021 01:55, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > It appears that all the failures are related to containers. I have been
> > able to reproduce the issue with a bullseye kernel, which defaults to
> > kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone=1. It
Hi Aurelien,
On 25-04-2021 01:55, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> It appears that all the failures are related to containers. I have been
> able to reproduce the issue with a bullseye kernel, which defaults to
> kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone=1. It seems the autopkgtest runners
> still use a buster
On 2021-04-23 17:47, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,
>
> On 23-04-2021 14:49, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Nope, unfortunately it seems the mail didn't reach me or the mailing
> > list, maybe it was too big?
>
> It did reach the BTS. I guess size may have been a factor yes, the log
> can be
Hi Aurelien,
On 23-04-2021 14:49, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Nope, unfortunately it seems the mail didn't reach me or the mailing
> list, maybe it was too big?
It did reach the BTS. I guess size may have been a factor yes, the log
can be picked up in the BTS.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description:
On 2021-04-22 22:26, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 19:54:22 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Hi Aurelien,,
> >
> > On 21-03-2021 00:03, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > Yes, could you please provide a full log? I am not able to reproduce the
> > > issue locally nor on
Hi Aurelien,
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 19:54:22 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,,
>
> On 21-03-2021 00:03, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Yes, could you please provide a full log? I am not able to reproduce the
> > issue locally nor on barriere.d.o, so I have no idea what fails.
>
> Please find
Hi Aurelien,
On 21-03-2021 00:03, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Yes, could you please provide a full log? I am not able to reproduce the
> issue locally nor on barriere.d.o, so I have no idea what fails.
Of course when you try to, it doesn't work. I had 5 runs on arm64 which
all succeeded. I'm
control: tag -1 + moreinfo
On 2021-03-20 21:05, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Source: glibc
> Version: 2.31-9
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sid bullseye
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: flaky
>
> Dear maintainer(s),
>
> Your package has an
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + moreinfo
Bug #985617 [src:glibc] glibc: flaky autopkgtest on most architectures
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
985617: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985617
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Source: glibc
Version: 2.31-9
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bullseye
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: flaky
Dear maintainer(s),
Your package has an autopkgtest, great. However, I looked into
the history of your autopkgtest [1] and I noticed it
12 matches
Mail list logo
