Chris -
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 01:01:47AM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > TZ=UTC zip -X --latest-time "$zipfile" fab/*
> > # Note the -X flag; to be pedantic about timestamps,
> > # that means you should unpack with TZ=UTC unzip "$zipfile". See
> > #
> >
Hey,
> echo "Forcing timestamp $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH"
> touch --date="@$SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH" fab/*
> TZ=UTC zip -X --latest-time "$zipfile" fab/*
> # Note the -X flag; to be pedantic about timestamps,
> # that means you should unpack with TZ=UTC unzip "$zipfile". See
> #
>
hello,
since there's currently a lengthy discussion about the relevance of
build paths in reproducible builds, I took some time to do a status
update on the implementation of reproducible builds in Arch Linux.
There has been a system in place since late 2017 (run by
reproducible-builds.org)
On 2024-03-12, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 06:24:22PM +, James Addison via rb-general wrote:
>> Please find below a draft of the message I'll send to each affected
>> bugreport.
>
> looks good to me, thank you for doing this!
>
>> Note: I confused myself when writing
o
⬋ ⬊ February 2024 in Reproducible Builds
o o
⬊ ⬋ https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2024-02/
o
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 06:24:22PM +, James Addison via rb-general wrote:
> Please find below a draft of the message I'll send to each affected bugreport.
looks good to me, thank you for doing this!
> Note: I confused myself when writing this; in fact Salsa-CI reprotest _does_
> continue to
Hi folks,
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 01:04, James Addison wrote:
> [ ... snip ...]
>
> The Debian bug severity descriptions[1] provide some more nuance, and that
> reassures me that wishlist should be appropriate for most of these bugs
> (although I'll inspect their contents before making any
