Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

2020-01-26 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld
Hi Ted, On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 4:54 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > So it's stupid stuff like the choice of compilers and CFLAGS At this point, wireguard-tools package is reproducible actually. At some point it wasn't, due to some older versions (but not all older versions!) of make(1) passing GLO

Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

2020-01-25 Thread Theodore Y. Ts'o
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > The comment itself doesn't indicate to me (upstream) much at all, and > a pretty ordinary attempt to figure out what it means didn't yield > much Hi Jason, At least in my experience, most of the time when there are reproduc

Re: Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

2020-01-23 Thread Holger Levsen
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:01:35AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Unfortunately, this message is still non-ideal, because it contains a dead > link. I left the dead link as as such it still contained useful information, while removing the link would have removed that info. (And now the is

Re: Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

2020-01-21 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
(got a "550 5.6.0 improper use of 8-bit data in message header", resending without S-MIME signature, sorry for the duplicate) Holger Levsen wrote: I've improve it like this now: $ git log -p -1 commit 172f203eab628bd5df0106b33153dc428d12dd5c Author: Holger Levsen Date: Tue Jan 21 18:07:14

Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

2020-01-21 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi Jason, thanks for reaching out to us! On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > I received a reply about not providing "private support" I believe this is some unfortunate wording from someone to busy. I believe it was meant to say "please send this request to a

Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

2020-01-21 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:25 PM Sam Hartman wrote: > > > "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter writes: > > Jonathan> On 2020/01/21 16:43, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > >> This note doesn't make sense. It's either entirely invalid or so poorly > >> written that it's useless. As the author of

Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

2020-01-21 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:10 PM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > On 2020/01/21 16:43, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > This note doesn't make sense. It's either entirely invalid or so poorly > > written that it's useless. As the author of the code in question, I've > > been unable to ascertain what the not

Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

2020-01-21 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter writes: Jonathan> On 2020/01/21 16:43, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> This note doesn't make sense. It's either entirely invalid or so poorly >> written that it's useless. As the author of the code in question, I've >> been unable to ascertain wha

Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

2020-01-21 Thread Jonathan Carter
On 2020/01/21 16:43, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > This note doesn't make sense. It's either entirely invalid or so poorly > written that it's useless. As the author of the code in question, I've > been unable to ascertain what the note is about, and an email to the note > author hasn't yielded any u