On Sat, 2016-05-21 at 15:31 -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 01:05 -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > CC'ing Rusty
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Ben
On May 21, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> And how is this signature prepared? Since it needs the compiled
> module it would be a matter of changing the compiler, even minor
> version, to invalidate the argument of reproducible build. It seems
> very fragile to me.
But this
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 01:05 -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> CC'ing Rusty
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> >
>> > Debian will not sign modules during the
On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 11:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 01:05 -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > CC'ing Rusty
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Debian will not sign modules during the
On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 01:05 -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> CC'ing Rusty
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > Debian will not sign modules during the kernel package build, as this
> > conflicts with the goal of reproducible builds.
Hi,
CC'ing Rusty
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Debian will not sign modules during the kernel package build, as this
> conflicts with the goal of reproducible builds. Instead, we will
> generate detached signatures offline and include them in a
Debian will not sign modules during the kernel package build, as this
conflicts with the goal of reproducible builds. Instead, we will
generate detached signatures offline and include them in a second
package.
We could attach the signatures when building this second package or at
installation
7 matches
Mail list logo