Your message dated Wed, 19 Nov 2025 06:31:10 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1120421: wireless-regdb: autopkgtest needs update for
new version of linux
has caused the Debian Bug report #1120421,
regarding wireless-regdb: autopkgtest needs update for new version of linux
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1120421: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1120421
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: wireless-regdb
Version: 2025.10.07-1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-CC: [email protected]
Tags: sid forky
User: [email protected]
Usertags: needs-update
Control: affects -1 src:linux
Dear maintainer(s),
With a recent upload of linux the autopkgtest of wireless-regdb fails in
testing when that autopkgtest is run with the binary packages of linux
from unstable. It passes when run with only packages from testing. In
tabular form:
pass fail
linux from testing 6.17.7-2
wireless-regdb from testing 2025.10.07-1
all others from testing from testing
I copied some of the output at the bottom of this report.
Currently this regression is blocking the migration of linux to testing
[1]. Of course, linux shouldn't just break your autopkgtest (or even
worse, your package), but it seems to me that the change in linux was
intended and your package needs to update to the new situation.
If this is a real problem in your package (and not only in your
autopkgtest), the right binary package(s) from linux should really add a
versioned Breaks on the unfixed version of (one of your) package(s).
Note: the Breaks is nice even if the issue is only in the autopkgtest as
it helps the migration software to figure out the right versions to
combine in the tests.
More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=linux
https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/w/wireless-regdb/66041536/log.gz
42s tar: /usr/src/linux-source-6.17.tar.xz: Cannot open: No such file
or directory
42s tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
42s Traceback (most recent call last):
42s File
"/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.hv2sgh0k/downtmp/build.qX2/src/debian/tests/check-signatures",
line 132, in <module>
42s main()
42s ~~~~^^
42s File
"/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.hv2sgh0k/downtmp/build.qX2/src/debian/tests/check-signatures",
line 116, in main
42s certs_source_dir = extract_certs_source(source_name)
42s File
"/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.hv2sgh0k/downtmp/build.qX2/src/debian/tests/check-signatures",
line 30, in extract_certs_source
42s subprocess.check_call(['tar', '-C', tmp_dir, '-xa',
42s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
42s '-f', f'/usr/src/{source_name}.tar.xz',
42s ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
42s certs_subdir])
42s ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
42s File "/usr/lib/python3.13/subprocess.py", line 419, in check_call
42s raise CalledProcessError(retcode, cmd)
42s subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command '['tar', '-C',
'/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.hv2sgh0k/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp', '-xa', '-f',
'/usr/src/linux-source-6.17.tar.xz',
'linux-source-6.17/net/wireless/certs']' returned non-zero exit status 2.
42s autopkgtest [15:27:03]: test check-signatures
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Paul,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:48:17PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Salvatore,
>
> On 11/17/25 22:44, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > So it was not really an issue of wireless-regdb, in theory we could
> > consider it a bug in src:linux. reassign it there and fix up the
> > metadata, but I guess it okay to as well now just close this bug with
> > the above, what do you prefer?
>
>
> I'm happy if you as maintainers of both packages are satisfied. So feel free
> to close.
Thanks for the confirmation/acking. I'm closing this report now.
Regards,
Salvatore
--- End Message ---
