I'm guessing this might be a quirk of the armhf runners:
test_tree_garbage (__main__.ChrootRunner)
copied source tree contains only expected files ... : Operation not permitted
cp: cannot create special file ‘/tmp/tmp36ee0r77/chroot//dev/null’:
Operation not permitted
cp: cannot create special
I'm guessing this might be a quirk of the armhf runners:
test_tree_garbage (__main__.ChrootRunner)
copied source tree contains only expected files ... : Operation not permitted
cp: cannot create special file ‘/tmp/tmp36ee0r77/chroot//dev/null’:
Operation not permitted
cp: cannot create special
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Jan Gutter <1720...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> @arges
>
> Hi, would you need any more testing from us?
Nope, your part is done. All SRUs have to bake for 7 days in -proposed
to shake out regressions.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Jan Gutter <1720...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> @arges
>
> Hi, would you need any more testing from us?
Nope, your part is done. All SRUs have to bake for 7 days in -proposed
to shake out regressions.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
On 20.10.2017 [08:24:37 -0700], Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> On 20.10.2017 [07:18:15 -], Jan Gutter wrote:
> > I had a look at the two proposals and could not spot any obvious
> > mistakes:
> >
> > - the correct upstream git commit has been cherry-picked
> > - I don't have any objections to
On 20.10.2017 [08:24:37 -0700], Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> On 20.10.2017 [07:18:15 -], Jan Gutter wrote:
> > I had a look at the two proposals and could not spot any obvious
> > mistakes:
> >
> > - the correct upstream git commit has been cherry-picked
> > - I don't have any objections to
On 20.10.2017 [07:18:15 -], Jan Gutter wrote:
> I had a look at the two proposals and could not spot any obvious
> mistakes:
>
> - the correct upstream git commit has been cherry-picked
> - I don't have any objections to attribution or log messages
>
> Thanks again for shepherding this one
On 20.10.2017 [07:18:15 -], Jan Gutter wrote:
> I had a look at the two proposals and could not spot any obvious
> mistakes:
>
> - the correct upstream git commit has been cherry-picked
> - I don't have any objections to attribution or log messages
>
> Thanks again for shepherding this one
On 20.10.2017 [07:09:00 -], Jan Gutter wrote:
> I concur with option 2), unnecessary deviation will just cause
> confusion.
Thank you for confirming that!
> Regarding the other buffer sizes, the last time I looked they were
> mostly OK. The issue reared its head in this particular case
On 20.10.2017 [07:09:00 -], Jan Gutter wrote:
> I concur with option 2), unnecessary deviation will just cause
> confusion.
Thank you for confirming that!
> Regarding the other buffer sizes, the last time I looked they were
> mostly OK. The issue reared its head in this particular case
On 19.10.2017 [09:35:19 -], Jan Gutter wrote:
> @nacc
>
> Thanks so much for the explanation. I also found
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase#Merge_Proposals_and_Reviewing
> that details a bit more of the internal processes. As relative outsiders
> to the Ubuntu process, I'd
On 17.10.2017 [08:56:17 -], Jan Gutter wrote:
> @nacc I built from source to verify that the one-liner is directly
> responsible for fixing and breaking the issue (inherent paranoia). I did
> test with the binaries and they worked.
Ah ok, yeah -- I guess that's reasonable, and is a good
On 17.10.2017 [08:56:17 -], Jan Gutter wrote:
> @nacc I built from source to verify that the one-liner is directly
> responsible for fixing and breaking the issue (inherent paranoia). I did
> test with the binaries and they worked.
Ah ok, yeah -- I guess that's reasonable, and is a good
13 matches
Mail list logo
