Am 29.08.2016 um 15:38 schrieb Christian Marillat:
> OK, I've removed this patch. No new upload, I'm waiting for the next
> upstream release.
I see now what the problem is. I was using time.mktime() to convert the
static timestamp to seconds since epoch for insertion into the appdata
XML file, but
On 29 août 2016 15:24, Florian Höch wrote:
> Am 29.08.2016 um 14:56 schrieb Christian Marillat:
>> You are really sure ?
>
> All the patch seems to do in essence is use a different static timestamp
> value, which for all intents and purposes is fine, it just looks redundant.
OK, I've removed thi
Am 29.08.2016 um 14:56 schrieb Christian Marillat:
> You are really sure ?
All the patch seems to do in essence is use a different static timestamp
value, which for all intents and purposes is fine, it just looks redundant.
On 26 août 2016 15:09, Florian Höch wrote:
> I'm a bit befuddled by this:
>
> Since DisplayCAL 3.1.5, the 'lastmod_time' variable is populated from
> the value recorded statically in the file DisplayCAL/__version__.py that
> is part of the source archive, so the build is (and was) reproducible
>
I'm a bit befuddled by this:
Since DisplayCAL 3.1.5, the 'lastmod_time' variable is populated from
the value recorded statically in the file DisplayCAL/__version__.py that
is part of the source archive, so the build is (and was) reproducible
already [1], and the patch was unneeded. I see that the
Source: dispcalgui
Version: 3.1.5.0-1
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], I noticed
that dispcalgui could not be bu
6 matches
Mail list logo
