Re: Bug#861591: Bug#862071: password-store: FTBFS when built in a path with >= 74 characters

2017-05-12 Thread Niels Thykier 
Control: tags -1 stretch-ignore

intrigeri:
> Dominic Hargreaves:
>> Please could you rule on whether the above class of bugs should be RC
>> for stretch? It doesn't seem productive at this late stage.
> 
> Indeed: I'll be happy to fix that in Buster or in a Stretch
> point-release (also because I've noticed it breaks autopkgtests for
> some packages of "mine"), but IMO this shouldn't block the Stretch
> release, so a stretch-ignore tag would seem suitable to me.
> 
> Cheers,
> 

Definitely RC, happy to see a fix in stretch, but I agree it is deferrable.

Thanks,
~Niels

Re: Bug#861591: Bug#862071: password-store: FTBFS when built in a path with >= 74 characters

2017-05-12 Thread intrigeri 
Dominic Hargreaves:
> Please could you rule on whether the above class of bugs should be RC
> for stretch? It doesn't seem productive at this late stage.

Indeed: I'll be happy to fix that in Buster or in a Stretch
point-release (also because I've noticed it breaks autopkgtests for
some packages of "mine"), but IMO this shouldn't block the Stretch
release, so a stretch-ignore tag would seem suitable to me.

Cheers,
-- 
intrigeri

Re: Bug#861591: Bug#862071: password-store: FTBFS when built in a path with >= 74 characters

2017-05-10 Thread Dominic Hargreaves 
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:43:21PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> gregor herrmann wrote:
> 
> > > This is due to GNUPGHOME needing to fit within sockaddr_un.sun_path.
> > 
> > Also #861591, where the same happens.
> > 
> > I'm not sure how RC-ish this should be, as build paths by our usual
> > tools (sbuild, pbuilder) are, IIRC, shorter (/build//…), so
> > this shouldn't be a problem in most cases.
> 
> As it happens, it appears to also fail when HOME is non-existent:
> 
>   https://gist.github.com/lamby/72f051e7c4dd75cfbdd23e48a2151f5e/raw
> 
> … which is even more dubious as RC severity, but I'll leave that to
> the Release Team.

Hi Release Team,

Please could you rule on whether the above class of bugs should be RC
for stretch? It doesn't seem productive at this late stage.

Thanks,
Dominic.