On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:51:39PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2016-12-01 16:24:16) > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the > > > "nmu" command of wanna-build to also add an option that allows setting a > > > timestamp, or even let wanna-build generate that timestamp itself (from > > > the > > > time it processes the "nmu" command) and then pass it to sbuild via a > > > not-yet-existing --binNMU-timestamp option? > > > > Wanna-build has a "State-Change" date: > > > > wouter@wuiet:~$ wanna-build -A powerpc --info nbd > > nbd: > > Package : nbd > > Version : 1:3.14-4 > > Builder : buildd_powerpc-porpora > > State : Installed > > Section : admin > > Priority : source > > Installed-Version : 1:3.14-4 > > Previous-State : Uploaded > > State-Change : 2016-11-21 23:13:18.744533 > > Build-time : 9255 > > CalculatedPri : 50 > > component : main > > Distribution : sid > > Notes : out-of-date > > Old-Failed : -------------------- 1:2.9.23-1 -------------------- > > fails test suite > > State-Days : 9 > > State-Time : 835808 > > Success-build-time : 366 > > > > Why not use that? > > I don't know wanna-build but this timestamp seems to be architecture specific > (I see "powerpc" in your paste above)? > > Instead, sbuild should be called with the same input timestamp on all > architectures when an nmu is to be built.
Hmm, yes. That doesn't fit then. -- < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules, and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too. -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12