Hi Guillem, (sorry for the late reply…)
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:20:44AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > could you please comment briefly on > > your take on this bug and it's status? > > I've had my qualms about the need for this patch, but in any > case the provided patch has not been correct now for a while as > I pointed out on IRC some time ago. Which is why Mattia reworked > it temporarily so that the dpkg in the reproducible repo works and > does not mess with the data.tar files. > > As I also mentioned on IRC, I'm planning on coming up with something > for this for the next upload. And left it out as it's certainly not > in the critical path to reproducible binaries, as the control member > has a more controlled environment. thanks for this information and your work on this. (I agree with your assessment its not that critical…) > > It's in the BTS since 13 months without a maintainer comment. > So it's certainly true that the bug report has had no comment for > that long, and I should have probably updated it for the benefit > of others, but I was actually quite surprised by this mail from you > given that I've been keeping at least Mattia and others on the IRC > channel informed of the progress and bugs status, which I had the > impression were getting relayed to the reproducible IRC channel, > and which he confirms he has been doing all along… so claiming no > maintainer comment seems a bit unfair TBH. right. what I ment indeed where "maintainer comments in the BTS" as comments on IRC (or mailinglists or RL) get lost/forgotten/cannot be found… which is precisely what had happened here: I was really lost at the status of this bug, the patch was in our repo since a long time yet I had no idea whether you considered it ready, useless or in need of some work. (I'm not on the #debian-dpkg IRC channel and while I do read dpkg's bugs I wouldn't say that I follow it's development closely.) so long story short: I ment comments in the BTS & I'm sorry to have given the impression I think you don't care about dpkg's bugs. That's definitly the opposite of what I think! :) -- cheers, Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature