Dear Bill,
> Upstream will never take it. This is not the right way to fix this bug
> and you know it.
I'm afraid I was a little disappointed to read your response.
It is entirely feasible that upstream would agree with the sentiment
that such timestamps are not useful (or even misleading) and thus
should be removed. I have convinced countless developers in the past
using this or similar arguments.
Furthermore, I did not enjoy being told "I know you know how to do
better" or being informed the patch is "a waste of time". Whatever
the merits of those statements, I could not help but interpret your
tone as needlessly hectoring and, at best, unproductive. As a project,
we should — and can — do better.
> I really mean gap-gapdoc, not this package.
[…]
> The whole reproducible builds is anxiogen because there are no reliable
> tool to check a package is reproducible
(These are topics/questions outside the scope of this bug report; I fear
we would be doing them a disservice by attempting to cover them here.)
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
