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
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:
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:
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
