[pkg-lxc-devel] Enabled salsa CI for lxc and lxcfs

[Mathias Gibbens]

On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 21:01 +0000, Mathias Gibbens wrote:
>   Just a heads up that I've enabled the salsa CI for lxc and lxcfs.
> lxc
> already has a debian/salsa-ci.yml file, so it should automatically
> trigger when commits are pushed, and I'll add that to lxcfs as I work
> on packaging the latest upstream release of that package.

  Following up on this, for others who might be interested.

  For the lxc pipeline, the "reprotest" stage failed with an unhelpful
"binary files ... differ" message. I downloaded the job artifacts and
ran `debdiff`, which showed the following information:

> [The following lists of changes regard files as different if they have
> different names, permissions or owners.]
> 
> Files in second .deb but not in first
> -------------------------------------
> -rwxr-xr-x  root/root   /usr/libexec/lxc/lxc-user-nic
> 
> Files in first .deb but not in second
> -------------------------------------
> -rwsr-xr-x  root/root   /usr/libexec/lxc/lxc-user-nic
> 
> No differences were encountered between the control files

  It looks like the suid bit isn't being set properly in the
"experiment" test build during this stage. I've looked at how that
build is setup and it appears to randomize several environment
variables, but I don't see anything obvious that would cause an issue
with the suid bit being set in the resulting package.

  And for the lxcfs pipeline, the "test-crossbuild-arm64" stage failed
trying to install the package python3-jinja2:arm64, but python3-jinja2
is an Arch: all package. I rarely try to perform cross-builds, so I
haven't looked into this much further.

Mathias
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-lxc-devel/attachments/20220826/6cb88853/attachment.sig>