Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #17223 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-12-04 11:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2025-12-04 23:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python
Weird status of pdm Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> - 2025-12-04 11:30 +0100
Re: Weird status of pdm Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-12-04 18:00 +0100
Re: Weird status of pdm Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> - 2025-12-04 23:50 +0100
| From | Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-04 11:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Weird status of pdm |
| Message-ID | <LYeL0-hQ5-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hello. I would like to get some help with "pdm". The package builds fine in salsa ci: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/pdm/-/pipelines but it fails in the buildds: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=pdm Recently, Graham Inggs told me that many python packages are expected to FTBFS during the transition (to avoid MBF for issues that will fix by themselves), so I wonder if this is one of them or not. I feel that there must be something subtle about this case and I don't know what it could be. Thanks.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-04 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <LYkQp-lRT-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #17223 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thursday, December 4, 2025 3:26:25 AM Mountain Standard Time Santiago Vila wrote: > Hello. > > I would like to get some help with "pdm". The package builds fine in salsa ci: > > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/pdm/-/pipelines > > but it fails in the buildds: > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=pdm You have a number of tests that are failing on the buildds. One of the differences between the buildds and Salsa CI is that the buildds do not allow any internet access during build, whereas Salsa CI does not enforce that. So, the first place I would recommend looking is to see if the tests that are failing require internet access. If that is the case, you can disable just those tests during the build, while enabling them in autopkgtest (which does allow internet access). If these tests do not require internet access, then you might dig deeper into the error message for each test to see why they are failing. -- Soren Stoutner soren@debian.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-04 23:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <LYqj7-pze-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #17225 |
[ trimming Cc list ] On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 09:59:28AM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > You have a number of tests that are failing on the buildds. > > One of the differences between the buildds and Salsa CI is that the buildds do > not allow any internet access during build, whereas Salsa CI does not enforce > that. So, the first place I would recommend looking is to see if the tests > that are failing require internet access. > > If that is the case, you can disable just those tests during the build, while > enabling them in autopkgtest (which does allow internet access). > > If these tests do not require internet access, then you might dig deeper into > the error message for each test to see why they are failing. Thanks a lot, there is indeed an upstream commit regarding network access, which I will try next, because it will disable at least some of the failing tests. [ However, both the buildd network and Salsa CI recently switched to sbuild+unshare and neither of them currently allow network access, so it is certainly surprising that they do not behave the same in this respect ]. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python
csiph-web