FYI: https://gitlab.com/codelibre/schroot/-/blob/eol/README.md
-Original Message-
From: Christoph Biedl
Sent: 11 June 2022 07:31
To: Konomi Kitten ; 1012...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#1012641: schroot.service: Failed at step EXEC spawning
/usr/share/schroot/bin/schroot-init: Is a direc
_construction_file (E)
3: setUp() failed
3: - uncaught exception of type std::exception (or derived).
3: - /home/rleigh/schroot-1.6.10/debian/build/test/testdata/config.ex1: File is
not owned by user root
This is a behaviour change or breakage in fakeroot in unstable, from what I can
tell. The sa
On 2018-03-26 11:58, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
Hi, is there any news about this please?
I saw:
Marked as fixed in versions schroot/1.7.0-1. Request was from Luca
Falavigna to cont...@bugs.debian.org.
(Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:00:03 GMT)
But schroot >=1.7 packages are not present...
https://tracker.deb
On 2016-05-11 12:13, Martin Buck wrote:
unarchive 619825
found 619825 1.6.10-1+b1
thanks
This resurfaced on a i386 machine using the jessie version of schroot,
same
error as in the original bug report.
A quick look at debian/rules suggests that this came back already
earlier
when the build w
> Matthias Klose (2015-02-12):
>> The following tests FAILED:
>> Errors while running CTest
>>2 - sbuild-chroot-chroot (Failed)
>>6 - sbuild-run-parts (Failed)
>> make[2]: *** [test] Error 8
>> Makefile:117: recipe for target 'test' failed
>> make[2]: Leaving directory '/«PKGBUILDD
> On 07/15/2015 05:21 PM, rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
>>> Matthias Klose (2015-02-12):
The following tests FAILED:
Errors while running CTest
2 - sbuild-chroot-chroot (Failed)
6 - sbuild-run-parts (Failed)
make[2]: *** [test] Error 8
Makefile:117: recipe for
bably also in a couple of other tools. If anyone
else has time to do that, that would be great, because I'm afraid I'm
a little tied up writing my PhD thesis for the next couple of months.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:52:46PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 03:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:57:18PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > >> rleigh writes:
&g
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:52:23PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 05:40:52PM +0100, rleigh wrote:
> > [...]
> >> The fix for this is straightforward: by making initramfs-tools use the
> >> same optio
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 07:56:13PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 05:40:52PM +0100, rleigh wrote:
> [...]
> > The fix for this is straightforward: by making initramfs-tools use the
> > same options as initscripts and any additional user entries in
> >
initscripts so that everything works
> whether you're using /etc/mtab as a file or as a symlink to
> /proc/mounts (as will occur soon; see #620710 and
> http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/util-linux_2.19.1-1.dsc). The
> new mount uses libmount and /run/mount/utab which makes a
>
over to the host from the initramfs so
that read-only root works correctly. This matches up the mount
options with those used by initscripts so that everything works
whether you're using /etc/mtab as a file or as a symlink to
/proc/mounts (as will occur soon; see #620710 and
http://people.debian.
h mtab to a symlink.
Do you have any plans to update and upload in the near future?
If not, would you mind if I uploaded this to experimental?
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing o
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:31:23PM +0200, chris h wrote:
> * rleigh [110510 20:43]:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:55:48AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > > Am 10.05.2011 11:39, schrieb rleigh:
> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:11:20AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:55:48AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 10.05.2011 11:39, schrieb rleigh:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:11:20AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> Am 09.05.2011 23:40, schrieb rleigh:
> >>> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:56:39PM +0200, chris h
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:55:48AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 10.05.2011 11:39, schrieb rleigh:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:11:20AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> Am 09.05.2011 23:40, schrieb rleigh:
> >>> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:56:39PM +0200, chris h
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:11:20AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011 23:40, schrieb rleigh:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:56:39PM +0200, chris h wrote:
> >> with initscripts 2.88dsf-13.5 from exp and initramfs-tools maks/run
> >> there's a new warning dur
t may still attempt to read it.
As soon as mount switches to a symlink for /etc/mtab, it will never
be out of date.
I'll take a look later tonight.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `&
three years,
with the above proposed fix available for over two years.
Do you intend to fix this, or is the package no longer being
maintained?
Thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GN
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 06:48:15PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 26, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Testing with initramfs-tools (maks/run) with current unstable shows
> > udev appearing to work correctly with it using /dev/.udev when /run
> > is not present on the hos
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 06:48:15PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 26, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Testing with initramfs-tools (maks/run) with current unstable shows
> > udev appearing to work correctly with it using /dev/.udev when /run
> > is not present on the hos
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:12:49PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 26, rleigh wrote:
>
> > > -mount -t tmpfs -o nodev,noexec,nosuid,mode=0755 none /run
> > > +mount -t tmpfs -o "nosuid,size=20%,mode=0755" tmpfs /run
> Why does /run should not be n
--
This is with udev 168-1. However, I see the above without any changes
to initramfs-tools or initscripts, and this doesn't changes with /run
present in the initramfs or both the initramfs and rootfs, so it's a
separate issue, and so far specific to the VM image.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
hen initramfs-tools is updated and initscripts is not.
Thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 03:37:50PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 19, rleigh wrote:
>
> > (eth0 is configured here after changing the config to force it to use
> > dhcp). Since the interface is already "up", maybe that's the reason
> > the event
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:38:41PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 05:58:07PM +, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 05:43:02PM +0100, rleigh wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn't see a patch in git, so I've attached a simple o
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 03:37:50PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 19, rleigh wrote:
>
> > (eth0 is configured here after changing the config to force it to use
> > dhcp). Since the interface is already "up", maybe that's the reason
> > the event
gured here after changing the config to force it to use
dhcp). Since the interface is already "up", maybe that's the reason
the events aren't generated. So I guess the question now is, what's
bringing up the interface before ifupdown does? Could it be udev? Or
something e
ally
obtaining a lease. Since I have
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet dhcp
could it be related to not getting a hotplug event from udev?
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GN
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 05:58:07PM +, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 05:43:02PM +0100, rleigh wrote:
> >
> > I didn't see a patch in git, so I've attached a simple one here.
> > This creates /run as a tmpfs, and moves the mount to the ro
s a
simple and safe change to make. I've raised the severity due
to the /run transition being dependent on this being fixed.
Many thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GN
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:50:23PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > > > > Maybe your initramfs was not rebuilt to include the code which
> > > > > mounts /run?
> > > > Why would that be required? /run is mo
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:16:49PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 17, rleigh wrote:
>
> > The tradeoff here is that if /run is present, udev is broken. That
> It is not supposed to, and so far you are the only one who reported this.
> Are you sure that you do not
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:37:27AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Whether or not /run is a tmpfs or not is *irrelevant* to whether or
> > not udev should use it. The choice of filesystem is entirely up to
> > the admin, and while the d
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 06:01:20PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > > Maybe your initramfs was not rebuilt to include the code which
> > > mounts /run?
> > Why would that be required? /run is mounted by mountkernfs,
> > befo
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 03:15:33PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Not sure why udev is broken; it's using both locations from the
> > look of things. Maybe something it needs has been written to
> Maybe your initramfs was not re
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 02:34:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, rleigh wrote:
>
> > Not sure why udev is broken; it's using both locations from the
> > look of things. Maybe something it needs has been written to
> > one and it's not present i
thing on top. Without the versioned
initscripts dependency, all bets are off, and this breakage is
the consequence.
Example of breakage:
udev 167-2
initscripts 2.88dsf-13.3
(http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/run/sysvinit_2.88dsf-13.3.dsc)
initscripts provides /run, and this is set up during boot:
38 matches
Mail list logo
