Paul Gevers <[email protected]> writes: > I don't think I have additional insight. Except that I'm wondering if > it's worth holding back the update of libqb for this kernel issue on > an architecture we haven't release with yet.
Clearly not, I fully agree. > Do you think this could be a mis-compilation that we would slip into > testing? I was expecting/hoping this is a kernel issue, so it might > affect the version of libqb in testing already if the kernel it runs > on is affected. Also agreed: an OOPS is pretty much by definition a kernel issue. > Also Aurelien showed he can trigger the issue on all architectures, > but apparently only testsuites on loong64 trigger it in the wild. And PowerPC and Sparc buildds, if I read the report correctly. But why these buildds? Do they run a different kernel version of use some alternative apparmor settings? > I just ran the autopkgtest in testing on ci.d.n manually, it passes. I > also run an autopkgtest from an unpacked source version 2.0.10-1, > which means that autopkgtest builds the binaries and runs the > autopkgtests. They pass. Build time tests are skipped by autopkgtest > builds though. Thanks for this info. I still worry a little about breaking the build time tests or autopkgtests of the downstream packages, but we'll see, I guess. I'm uploading a new libqb with its build time tests disabled. -- Cheers, Feri.
