Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

[intrig...@debian.org 2016-06-05] > So, maybe it's acceptable to carry a very simple Debian-only solution > for GnuPG v1.x, until it is fully replaced by v2.x? The attached patch [Werner Koch 2016-06-05] > I'd say, go for it. Is there something missing with this patch causing it to not be

Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

affects -1 + gnupg1 thanks > gnupg: please make the build reproducible (And gnupg1 now after rename..) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-

Bug#806494: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:07, intrig...@debian.org said: > I gave it a try and AFAICT it won't be a small fix in the Makefile: > the yat2m-stamp changes depend on defs.inc, defsincdate, mkdefsinc and > friends. Then mkdefsinc.c imported from the v2.x tree does not compile Right, I feared that there

Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

Control: tag -1 + patch Hi, Werner Koch wrote (04 Jun 2016 16:23:11 GMT) : > On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:25, intrig...@debian.org said: >> Werner, could this change be backported to GnuPG 1.x? (I do realize >> that it's not merely about ya2tm.c, since e.g. doc/Makefile.am is >> also affected.) > If

Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:25, intrig...@debian.org said: > Werner, could this change be backported to GnuPG 1.x? (I do realize > that it's not merely about ya2tm.c, since e.g. doc/Makefile.am is > also affected.) If it is only to update yat2m and a small fix in the Makefile, a tested patch would be

Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

Hi, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote (17 Feb 2016 14:47:35 GMT) : > [Werner Koch 2015-11-30] >> will be in 2.1.10 hopefully this week. > I guess something is still missing, as gnupg is still not reproducable > according to the tests. The only difference reported by the test > framework is a date in

Bug#806494: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

[Werner Koch 2015-11-30] > will be in 2.1.10 hopefully this week. I guess something is still missing, as gnupg is still not reproducable according to the tests. The only difference reported by the test framework is a date in gpgv.1.gz. Was this file forgotten when the package was fixed? --

Bug#806494: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06, la...@debian.org said: > than repeat it here? ie. > Thanks. > Ah, okay. Retro, but makes sense. [ yat2m shall be able to run on all platforms and thus it need to restrict itself to a common subset. For

Bug#806494: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 22:51, la...@debian.org said: > The attached patch removes timestamps from the "yat2m" manpage > generator. Once applied, gnupg can be built reproducibly using our Can you please explain the envvar SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH and from what value it is derived. For the texi manuals we

Bug#806494: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

Hi Werner, > Can you please explain the envvar SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH and from what value > it is derived. Would it be okay to direct you to its canonical specification rather than repeat it here? ie. > The patch is anyway not portable; for

Bug#806494: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

Control: affects -1 + libgpg-error gnupg2 libgcrypt20 On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:51:09PM +0200, Chris Lamb wrote: > The attached patch removes timestamps from the "yat2m" manpage > generator. Once applied, gnupg can be built reproducibly using our > reproducible toolchain. The packages

Bug#806494: gnupg: please make the build reproducible

Source: gnupg Version: 1.4.19-6 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: timestamps X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org Hi, Whilst working on the "reproducible builds" effort [0], we noticed that gnupg could not be built