On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:52:44PM +0000, Chris Lamb wrote: > Hi Bill, > > > If you want to help with GAP, tell me why gap-gapdoc is not reproducible. > > I'm not sure I can tell you anything more beyond what was in my original > report (ie. date variation due to the use of \Month and \Year). :)
I really mean gap-gapdoc, not this package. > (I can 100% understand not wanting to diverge from upstream and would > certainly understand if you didn't want to take this patch before > upstream do.) Upstream will never take it. This is not the right way to fix this bug and you know it. I find it a waste of time to receive such patch. It does not include any information not available from reproducible-builds.org and suggest an incorrect course of action (instead of using FORCE_SOURCE_DATE, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH etc.). I know you know how to do better! The whole reproducible builds is anxiogen because there are no reliable tool to check a package is reproducible according to policy before uploading it to the archive. reproducible-builds.org is not a suitable substitute in many aspect. This is sad because this is an important project. But it is not worth the stress each time one upload a package. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
