Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> writes:
Hello,
The CI on salsa doesn't manage to build the debian-installer package because the signed linux 6.6.13 package is not available yet.
Is the thing you want to:
a) be able to build d-i on salsa even when we're in version skew,
or
b) do you want to be able to test with the latest version, whether it is signed or not?
Hello,
The CI on salsa doesn't manage to build the debian-installer package
because the signed linux 6.6.13 package is not available yet.
Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> writes:
Philip Hands, le mar. 23 janv. 2024 16:27:12 +0100, a ecrit:
Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> writes:
Hello,
The CI on salsa doesn't manage to build the debian-installer package
because the signed linux 6.6.13 package is not available yet.
Is the thing you want to:
a) be able to build d-i on salsa even when we're in version skew,
or
b) do you want to be able to test with the latest version, whether it is signed or not?
b)
Normally the bump in debian-installer comes about the same time as the linux upload. But there is the period between the linux upload and the linux-signed upload during which we don't really know whether we want to bump or not. Adding the alternative between non-signed and signed as I proposed would allow to be fine with either, while making sure it's the signed version which is used on buildds.
Ah, fair enough.
I guess in that case I'll need to adjust what I'm doing to detect the available versions of kernel that I'm looking for in that patch.
If you're only worried about builds on salsa-CI, same approach as used
in my MR ought to work,
and then one could perhaps control which kernel
is selected via variables, or perhaps defaulting to the unsigned kernel
(if available) would work for my use-case too, in which case I could
just add that as a feature.
The MR's here BTW: https://deb.li/3hHY2
BTW would it actually cause you a problem for the build to work, despite
the kernel being unavailable (e.g. by falling back to the previous
version)?
Philip Hands, le mar. 23 janv. 2024 16:27:12 +0100, a ecrit:
Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> writes:
Hello,
The CI on salsa doesn't manage to build the debian-installer package
because the signed linux 6.6.13 package is not available yet.
Is the thing you want to:
a) be able to build d-i on salsa even when we're in version skew,
or
b) do you want to be able to test with the latest version, whether it is signed or not?
b)
Normally the bump in debian-installer comes about the same time as the
linux upload. But there is the period between the linux upload and the linux-signed upload during which we don't really know whether we want to
bump or not. Adding the alternative between non-signed and signed as I proposed would allow to be fine with either, while making sure it's the signed version which is used on buildds.
For me it's fine for CI to fall back to the previous kernel for most
jobs of the pipeline. I guess we'd still want a build job in the
pipeline that sticks with the requested version, so that we notice in
case that's not working, without breaking the entire CI pipeline.
The CI on salsa doesn't manage to build the debian-installer package
because the signed linux 6.6.13 package is not available yet. Perhaps we should turn these build-deps:
linux-image-6.6.13-amd64 [amd64],
linux-image-6.6.13-arm64 [arm64],
linux-image-6.6.13-686 [i386],
linux-image-6.6.13-686-pae [i386],
into
linux-image-6.6.13-amd64 [amd64] | linux-image-6.6.13-amd64-unsigned [amd64],
linux-image-6.6.13-arm64 [arm64] | linux-image-6.6.13-arm64-unsigned [arm64],
linux-image-6.6.13-686 [i386] | linux-image-6.6.13-686-unsigned [i386],
linux-image-6.6.13-686-pae [i386] | linux-image-6.6.13-686-pae-unsigned [i386],
?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 299 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 81:58:19 |
Calls: | 6,696 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,229 |
Messages: | 5,347,845 |