Hi
On 02-04-2021 18:54, intrigeri wrote:
> Paul Gevers (2021-04-02):
>> On 02-04-2021 14:00, intrigeri wrote:
>>> I would like to see the same 1-line change in Bullseye, in the hope
>>> that it's enough to allow you folks to remove src:apparmor from
>>> the blocklist.
>>
>> Shall we test first if
Hi,
On 02-04-2021 18:54, intrigeri wrote:
> Paul Gevers (2021-04-02):
>> On 02-04-2021 14:00, intrigeri wrote:
>>> I would like to see the same 1-line change in Bullseye, in the hope
>>> that it's enough to allow you folks to remove src:apparmor from
>>> the blocklist.
>>
>> Shall we test first
Paul Gevers (2021-04-02):
> On 02-04-2021 14:00, intrigeri wrote:
>> I would like to see the same 1-line change in Bullseye, in the hope
>> that it's enough to allow you folks to remove src:apparmor from
>> the blocklist.
>
> Shall we test first if it helps?
Sure :)
I understand I can't do this
Hi intrigeri,
On 02-04-2021 14:00, intrigeri wrote:
> I would like to see the same 1-line change in Bullseye, in the hope
> that it's enough to allow you folks to remove src:apparmor from
> the blocklist.
Shall we test first if it helps?
> Would you like to pre-approve this here, or do you
Hi Paul,
Paul Gevers (2021-02-18):
> Hi intrigeri,
>
> On 18-02-2021 10:34, intrigeri wrote:
>>> # Dummy test so that changes to linux-image-amd64 trigger our other
>>> autopkgtests
>>> # on ci.debian.net
>
> By the way, we have the "hint-testsuite-triggers" for this.
>
>> Actually,
Ooo,
On 18-02-2021 10:34, intrigeri wrote:
>> # Dummy test so that changes to linux-image-amd64 trigger our other
>> autopkgtests
>> # on ci.debian.net
>> Test-Command: /bin/true
>> Depends: linux-image-amd64 [amd64] | linux-image-generic [ amd64 ]
>> Restrictions: superficial,
Hi intrigeri,
On 18-02-2021 10:34, intrigeri wrote:
>> # Dummy test so that changes to linux-image-amd64 trigger our other
>> autopkgtests
>> # on ci.debian.net
By the way, we have the "hint-testsuite-triggers" for this.
> Actually, apparmor-profiles-extra has the exact same test, and
Hi,
intrigeri (2021-02-06):
> I understand the LXC container is stopped and restarted between each
> test, so what Paul wrote above suggests the container is successfully
> stopped between the 1st and 2nd test, same between the 2nd and 3rd
> test, but then it occasionally fails to stop after the
Hi,
I've just run the src:apparmor autopkgtests on ci-worker05 a bunch
of times, using the autopkgtest command:
- from an unpacked source tree:
- experimental (3.0.1-4): 5 times
- unstable (2.13.6-8): 3 times
- using the package that's in the archive:
- experimental (3.0.1-4): 2 times
Hi Paul,
Paul Gevers (2021-02-05):
> On 05-02-2021 18:02, intrigeri wrote:
>> First, I'm wondering if this bug might be related to the problem you
>> recently fixed in debci's LXC containers AppArmor configuration.
>
> That was only on one particular ppc64el host, so that shouldn't impact
> the
Hi intrigeri,
On 05-02-2021 18:02, intrigeri wrote:
> First, I'm wondering if this bug might be related to the problem you
> recently fixed in debci's LXC containers AppArmor configuration.
That was only on one particular ppc64el host, so that shouldn't impact
the other architectures.
> What
Hi,
First, I'm wondering if this bug might be related to the problem you
recently fixed in debci's LXC containers AppArmor configuration.
What about giving it another try?
If that's not enough, then I'd like to come back to what we discussed
a few months ago:
intrigeri (2020-10-27):
> Paul
Hi,
Paul Gevers (2020-10-25):
> On 25-10-2020 19:44, intrigeri wrote:
>> This being said, this was a while ago, and I wonder if the problem got
>> somehow fixed in one of those packages in the meantime. Could you
>> please give it another try with 2.13.5-1 (sid) or 3.0.0-1
>> (experimental), and
Hi intrigeri,
On 25-10-2020 19:44, intrigeri wrote:
> This being said, this was a while ago, and I wonder if the problem got
> somehow fixed in one of those packages in the meantime. Could you
> please give it another try with 2.13.5-1 (sid) or 3.0.0-1
> (experimental), and ideally both? This
Hi,
Paul Gevers (2020-05-25):
> The most obvious alternative is that your run it locally, but I guess
> you tried and couldn't reproduce?
I usually use the libvirt backend but I tried today with the lxc
backend locally, and could not reproduce. Note I don't see this
problem on Salsa CI either.
Hi intrigeri,
On 25-05-2020 11:18, intrigeri wrote:
> Thanks for letting me know — sorry for the delay in answering.
No problem.
> I don't really have a clue at this stage.
Ack.
> My approach would be to first figure out which one, among the 2 tests
> (compile-policy and test-installed), is
Hi,
Paul Gevers (2020-03-22):
> I'm not sure what's going on, but I wanted to at least inform you that
> the apparmor autopkgtest is not working smoothly on the ci.debian.net
> infrastructure. Something in the test is very often preventing
> autopkgtest (the binary) from stopping and cleaning up
Source: apparmor
Version: 2.13.3-7
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
Control: affects -1 autopkgtest
Control: affects -1 debci
Dear maintainer(s),
I'm not sure what's going on, but I wanted to at least inform you that
the apparmor autopkgtest is not working smoothly on the ci.debian.net
18 matches
Mail list logo
