Bug#855355: RFS: nasm/2.12.02-1 [ITA]

Hi Paul >It is far better to just remove build dates, they are very pointless. might be true, but somebody still wants them, and removing them can be painful to maintain on (some) graphical applications. >That isn't necessary because Debian has implemented >SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH:>https://reprodu

Bug#855355: RFS: nasm/2.12.02-1 [ITA]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:50:21 + (UTC) Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > side note: the reproducible patch might be changed in something little > different > -const char nasm_date[] = __DATE__; > +const char nasm_date[] = __DATE_DEBIAN__; It is far better to just remove build dates, they are very

Bug#855355: RFS: nasm/2.12.02-1 [ITA]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: low Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nasm" Package name: nasm Version : 2.12.02-1 Upstream Author : "H. Peter Anvin" URL : http://www.nasm.us/ License : BSD-2-clause Section : devel