Your message dated Sat, 24 Feb 2024 14:46:14 +0000 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: Bug#1036828: debian-cd: wrong firmware archives built and published for D-I releases? has caused the Debian Bug report #1036828, regarding debian-cd: wrong firmware archives built and published for D-I releases? to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 1036828: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036828 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: debian-cd Severity: serious Hi, During a previous release, I spotted we had two firmware builds, but let the topic go once I was reassured that was to be expected. For RC 4: 1/43: Starting firmware_bookworm build at 2023-05-27:09:03:53 […] 9/43: Starting firmware_sid build at 2023-05-27:09:04:01 […] firmware_bookworm finished successfully (started at 2023-05-27:09:03:53, ended at 2023-05-27:09:06:31, took 0h02m38s) […] firmware_sid finished successfully (started at 2023-05-27:09:04:01, ended at 2023-05-27:09:07:07, took 0h03m06s) Now, waiting to see if someone would join the testing efforts, I diffed firmware lists between rc3 and rc4, and spotted those differences: -./firmware-sof-signed_2.2.4-1_all.deb -./intel-microcode_3.20230214.1_amd64.deb -./intel-microcode_3.20230214.1_i386.deb +./firmware-sof-signed_2.2.5-1_all.deb +./intel-microcode_3.20230512.1_amd64.deb +./intel-microcode_3.20230512.1_i386.deb The intel-microcode bits are OK: intel-microcode | 3.20230512.1 | testing/non-free-firmware | source, amd64, i386 intel-microcode | 3.20230512.1 | unstable/non-free-firmware | source, amd64, i386 The firmware-sof-signed, not so much: firmware-sof-signed | 2.2.4-1 | testing/non-free-firmware | all firmware-sof-signed | 2.2.5-1 | unstable/non-free-firmware | all It's a relatively new upload, and it's of course blocked at the moment: [2023-05-15] Accepted firmware-sof 2.2.5-1 (all source) into unstable (Mark Pearson) (signed by: Vincent Bernat) For the record, those archives end up being published in locations like the following, and I definitely expected those to match the firmware packages getting shipped into the images, not be some kind of snapshot of what's in unstable at the time the release is built! https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/firmware/bookworm/bookworm_di_rc3/ We should definitely clarify the situation, and get to the bottom of that double firmware build. From the log lines quoted above, if both bookworm and sid builds end up shipping files in the same destination directory, the last build wins and overrides the first one entirely? See also the “rsync noise” that seemed somewhat OK to ignore. Not sure whether that's directly related though… ISTR it was probably about some timestamp discrepancy due to the underlying filesystem. For RC 4: file has vanished: "/home/debian-cd/publish/.bookworm_di_rc4/firmware/firmware.zip" rsync: stat "/dsa/cdimage/.incoming/.bookworm_di_rc4/firmware/.firmware.tar.gz.VQGfUC" failed: No such file or directory (2) rsync: rename "/dsa/cdimage/.incoming/.bookworm_di_rc4/firmware/.firmware.tar.gz.VQGfUC" -> "firmware.tar.gz": No such file or directory (2) Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois ([email protected]) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Hey James, On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:09:27AM +0000, James Addison wrote: >Followup-For: Bug #1036828 >X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected] > >On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 11:01:31 +0000, I wrote: >> Should this bug be closed? (the logic to skip the experimental/sid firmware >> image build during non-testing builds is in place for both bookworm and >> trixie) > >Nope, it looks like I've misunderstood here. This change is ready, but pending >upload (as indicated by the bug tags). > >(may be worth double-checking that the bugnumber is referenced-as-closed in the >changelog, though?) Thanks for checking on this. In fact, it is closed (so closing with this mail). The issue was in the debian-cd setup repo, which is Debian images build-time config and not in the debian-cd package itself. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
--- End Message ---
