Re: [Reproducible-builds] getting dpkg ready for reproducible sid
Hi Guillem, On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:58:42AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Ok, so tar 1.29 has just been released and uploaded to Debian. I've > reworked the patch as mentioned above, and will merge it for 1.18.8, > and will do the same for most of the others. awesome news! looking much forward to 1.18.8! (and will probably still reply to your previous mail to this thread… :) but this is great news already! thanks! -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] getting dpkg ready for reproducible sid
Hi! On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 10:34:08 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 12:26:13 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > b.) common build timestamp for all files created at a later time > > Pending release of new upstream tar. And the patch reworked to stop > trying to detect the presence of --clamp-mtime at run-time. Ok, so tar 1.29 has just been released and uploaded to Debian. I've reworked the patch as mentioned above, and will merge it for 1.18.8, and will do the same for most of the others. Thanks, Guillem ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] getting dpkg ready for reproducible sid
On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 12:54:04 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:34:08AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 12:26:13 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > f.) add support for .buildinfo files > > > > I need to finish commenting on this, hopefully in the coming days. > > > > And wasn't it missing at least man pages for the .buildinfo file? > > Thanks, deb-buildinfo(5) is indeed mentioned in #138409 but doesn't > seem to be done yet. Lunar said in January he'd "rather make sure we all > agree on the fields before getting to it." Right, I saw that, but the bulk of the work is writing the man page, renaming few fields if necessary does not seem comparable, and I'm fine doing that myself if it ends up being necessary. > I suppose that mostly refers > to the ones currently called Environment and Installed-Build-Depends? > Is consensus any nearer now than in February? Sorry, I've not gone over the thread again yet. > > > g.) teach dpkg-genbuildinfo the new --build=[...] syntax > > > > This should be squashed in the existing patch before submission. > > It's squashed in the current pu/reproducible_builds branch fwiw, > this was just a changelog comment. Ah ok, perfect! Thanks, Guillem ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] getting dpkg ready for reproducible sid
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:34:08AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 12:26:13 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > f.) add support for .buildinfo files > > I need to finish commenting on this, hopefully in the coming days. > > And wasn't it missing at least man pages for the .buildinfo file? Thanks, deb-buildinfo(5) is indeed mentioned in #138409 but doesn't seem to be done yet. Lunar said in January he'd "rather make sure we all agree on the fields before getting to it." I suppose that mostly refers to the ones currently called Environment and Installed-Build-Depends? Is consensus any nearer now than in February? > > g.) teach dpkg-genbuildinfo the new --build=[...] syntax > > This should be squashed in the existing patch before submission. It's squashed in the current pu/reproducible_builds branch fwiw, this was just a changelog comment. -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] getting dpkg ready for reproducible sid
Hi! On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 12:26:13 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > Looking at this I notice we have some changes without bugs and some > changes involving several bugs, still I think it would be good to > discuss them as uploaded. > > IOW: dear dpkg maintainers, what are your comments regarding getting the > following changes into sid: > > a.) single timestamp for ar headers Pending rereview of local changes, and staged until the treewalk changes have brewed in the rebootstrap, reproducible rebuilds and in unstable for a bit. I might have added this earlier if the treewalk code had been tested earlier, but didn't want to entangle these kind of changes together w/o prior wide testing. > b.) common build timestamp for all files created at a later time Pending release of new upstream tar. And the patch reworked to stop trying to detect the presence of --clamp-mtime at run-time. > c.) build timestamp using SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH Should be fine, I've added infrastructure to not have to use date(1), but otherwise should get in probably for 1.18.8 already. > d.) preset build timestamp to latest changelog entry I've been reluctant to consider this before the .buildinfo is generated and ideally actually stored in ftp-master. But I think at this point, I think I'll just merge it, so that we can get reproducible ar containers in the archive. Or I could merge WIP .buildinfo support and mark it as Format 0.0 and then we can tune it until we consider it ready and then mark it 1.0, let's see. > e.) normalize file permissions when creating control.tar The current change in the repro git is not correct as it changes the perms for control.tar and data.tar. The side-effects of refactoring! I've to take a look at this. > f.) add support for .buildinfo files I need to finish commenting on this, hopefully in the coming days. And wasn't it missing at least man pages for the .buildinfo file? > g.) teach dpkg-genbuildinfo the new --build=[...] syntax This should be squashed in the existing patch before submission. > And, do we need bugs for a+b+c+g ? No need. Thanks, Guillem ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] getting dpkg ready for reproducible sid
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 07:28:30PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > if (! exists($ENV{SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_TEX_PRIMITIVES})) {
> > $ENV{SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_TEX_PRIMITIVES} = 1;
> It actually has reached Debian about a month ago, but just in
> Experimental:
> https://packages.qa.debian.org/t/texlive-base/news/20160417T170437Z.html
as discussed on IRC, I dont think SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_TEX_PRIMITIVES is a
good idea. tex-k should just use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if that's set.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] getting dpkg ready for reproducible sid
Hi,
Alexis Bienvenüe wrote:
> Maybe it should be good to also have (to be merged with ddce83d)
>
> if (! exists($ENV{SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_TEX_PRIMITIVES})) {
> $ENV{SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_TEX_PRIMITIVES} = 1;
> }
>
> in dpkg-buildpackage (see summary and pointers in
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=75#25)
>
> This is not essential with current version of texlive-bin in our
> reproducible toolchain, that backports TL2016 patches to TL2015
> currently packaged (without using SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_TEX_PRIMITIVES), but
> it will be meaningful when TL2016 will be released and reach debian.
It actually has reached Debian about a month ago, but just in
Experimental:
https://packages.qa.debian.org/t/texlive-base/news/20160417T170437Z.html
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] getting dpkg ready for reproducible sid
Hi.
Le 09/05/2016 14:26, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> ddce83d dpkg-buildpackage: Preset build timestamp to latest changelog entry
>
> Are there any other changes needed in dpkg for Reproducible builds of Debian?
Maybe it should be good to also have (to be merged with ddce83d)
if (! exists($ENV{SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_TEX_PRIMITIVES})) {
$ENV{SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_TEX_PRIMITIVES} = 1;
}
in dpkg-buildpackage (see summary and pointers in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=75#25)
This is not essential with current version of texlive-bin in our
reproducible toolchain, that backports TL2016 patches to TL2015
currently packaged (without using SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_TEX_PRIMITIVES), but
it will be meaningful when TL2016 will be released and reach debian.
Regards,
Alexis Bienvenüe.
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
