Hi, On 2025-06-07 11:48, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 07/06/2025 08:28, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > Hi > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 09:33:26PM +0000, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 09:20:12PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > > > > Dear security team, > > > > > > > > Like last cycle [1] I'm asking you to test that the next security suite > > > > is > > > > working as intended. In our checklist [2] it's mentioned to coordinate > > > > with > > > > you an upload to trixie-security to confirm the build happens as > > > > expected. > > > > The checklist goes on to suggest a check that also a package needing > > > > signing > > > > works. > > > > > > > > During the last cycle some issues were found, one being that the archive > > > > didn't allow uploads (IIUC). Maybe it's worth checking by ftp-master > > > > ahead > > > > of time if that's the case now too (hence the CC). > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2023/03/msg00072.html > > > > [2] > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/ReleaseCheckList/TrixieCheckList > > > > > > Sure! If the dak infrastructre is ready, I can prepare a trixie-security > > > upload > > > for the open issues in src:libcoap3. > > > > Alternative proposal if we want as well the testing of the signing > > service: I have a 6.12.32-1 pending next, how about uploading the > > "noop" linux/6.12.31-1 for trixie-security < 6.12.32-1 unstable/trixie > > and let all the part checking? > > Sounds good.
Thanks for doing this test. It appeared that the riscv64 buildds were misconfigured, and while the package got build successfully, it ended up in the wrong upload queue, and got rejected on fasolo. This is now fixed, the package got reupload to suchon, and seems to have ended up in unchecked on seger. Regards Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B [email protected] http://aurel32.net
