Holger Levsen wrote:
> I also like the final order of the entries, though when I skimmed
> through https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2024-03/ I wondered
> whether we should add a table of contents to the top of each post?
>
> What do y'all think?
I used to always add one one, but haven't
Dear Chris et al,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:52:39PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
> This has now been published — thanks to all who contributed.
great, thank you and everyone involved indeed!
I also like the final order of the
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published — thanks to all who contributed.
If possible, please share the following link:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2024-03/
.. and also consider retweeting:
On 4/10/24 7:12 PM, Chris Lamb wrote:
Thank you for all the feedback so far. Unless someone makes these
changes to the draft themselves, I will attend to this (and all the
other critiques here and on Salsa) before publishing.
Thank you! I noticed I submitted the backseat-signed tool in early
Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:02:56AM -0400, David A. Wheeler via rb-general
> wrote:
>> I agree, this one is HUGE news. There's been a lot of awesome work related
>> to reproducible builds, but "minimal container userland is a 100%
>> reproducible build in a real-world
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:02:56AM -0400, David A. Wheeler via rb-general wrote:
> I agree, this one is HUGE news. There's been a lot of awesome work related to
> reproducible builds, but "minimal container userland is a 100% reproducible
> build in a real-world widely-used distro" is a big step
> On Apr 10, 2024, at 7:42 AM, kpcyrd wrote:
>
> On 4/10/24 12:58 PM, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2024-03/?draft
>
> > Reproducible builds developer kpcyrd reported that that the Arch Linux
> > "minimal container userland" is now 100% reproducible after
On 4/10/24 12:58 PM, Chris Lamb wrote:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2024-03/?draft
> Reproducible builds developer kpcyrd reported that that the Arch
Linux "minimal container userland" is now 100% reproducible after work
by developers dvzv and Foxboron on the one remaining
Hi all,
Sorry for the delay in getting this out — it was, quite genuinely, a
bumper amount of things that needed condensing, rewriting and
generally getting into readable shape. Anyway, if folks would be so
kind as to review the draft for last months report here:
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published — thanks to all who contributed.
If possible, please share the following link:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2023-03/
.. and also consider retweeting:
Hi all,
Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2023-03/?draft
⦠or, via the Git repository itself:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/blob/master/_reports/2023-03.md
I intend to publish it
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published — thanks to all who contributed. If
possible, please share the following link:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2022-03/
.. and also consider retweeting:
Hi all,
Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2022-03/?draft
… or, via the Git repository itself:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/blob/master/_reports/2022-03.md
I plan to publish it no
Santiago Torres-Arias wrote on Tue, 06 Apr 2021 23:25 +00:00:
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Where are those edits? I don't see them in reproducible-website.git or in
> > your reply.
>
> Oh, I just pushed, my bad (I wanted to double check it rendered properly
> locally and I went down a rabbit hole of
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published; many thanks to all who contributed. Please
share the following URL:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2021-03/
And, if you are into that kind of thing, please consider
John,
> Could someone please review my request for access? I sent my request a
> month or so ago and would like to push typo fixes. My Salsa username is
> jscott.
Done! (For some reason salsa had stopped (?) notifying me that there were
folks waiting.)
Regards,
--
o
⬋ ⬊
On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 05:03 -0400, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please feel free and commit/push to drafts without the overhead of
> sending patches or merge requests.
> If you currently do not have access to the above repository, you can
> request access by following the instructions at:
>
> Thanks!
>
> Where are those edits? I don't see them in reproducible-website.git or in
> your reply.
Oh, I just pushed, my bad (I wanted to double check it rendered properly
locally and I went down a rabbit hole of fixing my gen environment...).
Let me know if this helps...
>
> > I wasn't
Santiago Torres-Arias wrote on Tue, 06 Apr 2021 18:17 +00:00:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 05:02:58PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Do notice that verification is not part of the user story yet (i.e.,
> > > anybody can claim to own any artifact).
> >
> > So, if I understand correctly, sigstore
Good morning Santiago,
Santiago Torres-Arias wrote on Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 10:50:20 -0400:
> > I think mentioning sigstore is value. Reproducible builds let you verify
> > that
> > a given build *is* generated from a given source; sigstore can let you
> > verify that you got the *correct* source
> On Apr 6, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Santiago Torres-Arias
> wrote:
>
>> I think mentioning sigstore is value. Reproducible builds let you verify that
>> a given build *is* generated from a given source; sigstore can let you
>> verify that you got the *correct* source or build.
>
> I think
> I think mentioning sigstore is value. Reproducible builds let you verify that
> a given build *is* generated from a given source; sigstore can let you
> verify that you got the *correct* source or build.
I think mentioning sigstore is a good idea (Full disclosure, I'm
involved in the effort),
On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 10:39 -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Press releases are not the best way to learn technical details :-).
>
> I suggest adding a link to more details e.g.:
>
> See https://sigstore.dev/what_is_sigstore/“>”What is sigstore"
> for more details.
>
> I think mentioning
Press releases are not the best way to learn technical details :-).
I suggest adding a link to more details e.g.:
See https://sigstore.dev/what_is_sigstore/“>”What is sigstore" for
more details.
I think mentioning sigstore is value. Reproducible builds let you verify that
a given build *is*
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> It's not our business to fix their press release, of course, but if we
> link to something, we should ensure _our_ readers will be able to tell
> what we link to and why it's significant. If their press release doesn't
> explain that, then we could explain those bits
On 06/04/2021 02.24, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> I don't understand from that post what's so significant about sigstore,
> even after having followed the link to upstream's press release.
I think, the problem that it tries to address is that most (90%?) of
upstreams publish just tarballs/zipfiles
Chris Lamb wrote on Mon, 05 Apr 2021 09:03 +00:00:
> Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
>
> https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2021-03/?draft
I don't understand from that post what's so significant about sigstore,
even after having followed the link to
Hi all,
Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2021-03/?draft
⦠or, via the Git repository itself:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/blob/master/_reports/2021-03.md
I intend to publish it
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published; many thanks to all who contributed.
Please share the following URL:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2020-03/
Alternatively, if you are into that kind of thing, please
Hi Chris,
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 02:06:03PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
> https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2020-03/?draft
looks good to me, thanks!
--
cheers,
Holger
Hi all,
Please review the draft for March's Reproducible Builds report:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2020-03/?draft
… or, via the Git repository itself:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/blob/master/_reports/2020-03.md
I intend to publish it no
31 matches
Mail list logo
