Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

Hi Mattia, > So, is this commit challenging the idea of dpkg-buildpackage being > optional No. This change attempts to make no comment on whether dpkg-buildpackage should be mandatory or optional. As you imply from the question, Lintian would not be the place to push that. :) It intends that

Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 03:49:13PM +, Chris Lamb wrote: > Fixed in Git, pending upload: > > > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=d46ed44144b71558fc4288da13f276c38e4ec1ba So, is this commit challenging the idea of dpkg-buildpackage being optional? If I read it

Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

tags 832099 + pending thanks Fixed in Git, pending upload: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=d46ed44144b71558fc4288da13f276c38e4ec1ba Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-

Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

Mattia Rizzolo: > though, using dpkg-buildpackage is not mandatory, a package should be > able to build with just `debian/rules binary`. In such case SDE > wouldn't be exported. > To be honest, I am largely considering dpkg-buildpackage being optional (for mandatory targets) as a great

Bug#832099: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > On Fri 2016-07-22 17:31:15 -0400, Russ Allbery wrote: >> I do think we should support reproducible builds for all packages, and >> that our default build should be reproducible. I'm just not sure that >> we should rule out allowing packages

Bug#832099: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

On Fri 2016-07-22 17:31:15 -0400, Russ Allbery wrote: > I do think we should support reproducible builds for all packages, and > that our default build should be reproducible. I'm just not sure that we > should rule out allowing packages to be configured to use default upstream > behavior for

Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

Mattia Rizzolo writes: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:14:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> I think that's fine in this case, since not setting that variable >> doesn't break the build. It just means the build isn't reproducible, >> which is an optional feature. > 1/ it's an

Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:14:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think that's fine in this case, since not setting that variable doesn't > break the build. It just means the build isn't reproducible, which is an > optional feature. 1/ it's an optional feature *for now*. I'd really love to see

Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

Mattia Rizzolo writes: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:55:46AM +0200, Chris Lamb wrote: >> Attached is the following: >> >> commit 3b10f7dbaecedb0a458c25cc0b8615b489d424af >> Author: Chris Lamb >> Date: Fri Jul 22 10:54:02 2016 +0100 >> >>

Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:55:46AM +0200, Chris Lamb wrote: > Attached is the following: > > commit 3b10f7dbaecedb0a458c25cc0b8615b489d424af > Author: Chris Lamb > Date: Fri Jul 22 10:54:02 2016 +0100 > > c/rules: Check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH

Bug#832099: lintian: please check for unnecessary SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH assignments

Source: lintian Version: 2.5.45 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org Hi, Attached is the following: commit 3b10f7dbaecedb0a458c25cc0b8615b489d424af Author: Chris Lamb Date: Fri Jul 22 10:54:02 2016 +0100