RE: Please review the draft for December's report

> Could you suggest an alternative wording for that section in the report? > Unfortunately, I don't think I can copy-> paste the text you sent, as it is > just slightly too technical as it stands. Then this

Re: Please review the draft for December's report

Hi Chris, On 04.01.21 17:53, Chris Lamb wrote: Marcus Hoffmann wrote: (I'm one of the authors of the fork, but I didn't know this was covered here until *right* now.) This is indeed a bit unclear. The fork is called "Corona Contact Tracing Germany", or CCTG. Upstream (the official German

Re: reproducible .pyc files (& python-for-android)

Hi Frederik, * Frederik Rietdijk [2021-01-04 14:48]: > Recently I spent some time again as well on making the Python interpreters > in Nixpkgs build reproducibly. The following Nix expression results in > deterministic builds of the 3.x interpreters we have. Search for > `determinis` and you

Re: Please review the draft for December's report

Marcus Hoffmann wrote: > (I'm one of the authors of the fork, but I didn't know this was covered > here until *right* now.) > This is indeed a bit unclear. The fork is called "Corona Contact Tracing > Germany", or CCTG. Upstream (the official German corona contact tracing > app) is called

Re: Please review the draft for December's report

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:26:41PM -0300, Leo Wandersleb wrote: > > Last month we reported on a fork of the official German Corona App > > called Corona Warn App. [...] > could be more clear. I'm confused. Is this a working Corona App or is in > incompatible with the "official" one? If not, it's

Re: Please review the draft for December's report

Hi Leo, On 04.01.21 17:26, Leo Wandersleb wrote: Hi all sorry for reply to wrong thread before and re-post now: The section Last month we reported on a fork of the official German Corona App called Corona Warn App. Since then, the application is now available on the F-Droid free-software

Re: Please review the draft for December's report

Hi all sorry for reply to wrong thread before and re-post now: The section > Last month we reported on a fork of the official German Corona App > called Corona Warn App. Since then, the application is now available > on the F-Droid free-software app store (without integration with >

Re: reproducible .pyc files (& python-for-android)

> In Debian, Holger Levsen uploaded 540 packages ... I sort of get what this means I think ... Maybe this could be dumbed down a bit, especially as the in-depth links are there. On 1/2/21 11:25 AM, Felix C. Stegerman wrote: > Hi! > > I'm trying to get python-for-android (p4a) to build

Re: reproducible .pyc files (& python-for-android)

The section > Last month we reported on a fork of the official German Corona App called /Corona Warn App/ . Since then, the application is now available on the F-Droid free-software app store

Re: reproducible .pyc files (& python-for-android)

Recently I spent some time again as well on making the Python interpreters in Nixpkgs build reproducibly. The following Nix expression results in deterministic builds of the 3.x interpreters we have. Search for `determinis` and you will see the changes we do to get there. Maybe it's of help to

Re: reproducible .pyc files (& python-for-android)

Hi Bernhard (& Chris), * "Bernhard M. Wiedemann" [2021-01-04 12:48]: > Am 04.01.21 um 11:23 schrieb Chris Lamb: > >> p4a compiles those with "hostpython -OO -m compileall -b -f" (where > >> hostpython is the cross-compiled Python for the target -- arm64-v8a or > >> armeabi-v7a -- which is thus

Re: reproducible .pyc files (& python-for-android)

Hi Felix, > p4a compiles those with "hostpython -OO -m compileall -b -f" (where > hostpython is the cross-compiled Python for the target -- arm64-v8a or > armeabi-v7a -- which is thus definitely the same version on both > machines). As I understand it, recent versions Python can use

Re: Please review the draft for December's report

Hi Jeremiah, > We were informing you that we completed the AArch64 bootstrap to the > same level as the previous knight (on bare metal), x86 and AMD64 > bootstraps. [..] Thanks for reading over the draft; suggestions/corrections/ideas are, of course, really important to make them effective.

RE: Please review the draft for December's report

> Please review the draft for December's Reproducible Builds report: Minor mistake in regards to mescc-tools-seed We were informing you that we completed the AArch64 bootstrap to the same level as the previous knight (on bare metal), x86 and AMD64 bootstraps. Thus we have 4 independent bootstraps