Re: Please review the draft for week 158's blog post

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 07:55:39PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > looks good to me, though suprisingly short. > Well, alas, there's not much I can do about that at report-writing > time… sure. > > and now I wonder whether we should mention again that we lack funding > > atm, which hugely

Re: Bug#802241: #802241: dpkg: please store the hash of the installed .deb and allow to query it

Guillem, josch: thanks for your feedback, much appreciated. On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 08:38:49AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > I say it's an artificial blocker, because it is based on the problem > > faced while implementing the srebuild script to use the current > > snapshot.d.o API. And I

Bug#897442: reprotest timeouts while installing the build-dependencies

Hi Paride, thanks for your bug report! (I'll let others comment on it's content...) On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 06:59:53PM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote: > This is how it fails: > https://paste.debian.net/1022959/ this is nice on IRC but not so good in the BTS where we rather want to archive things

Bug#802241: please store the hash of the installed .deb and allow to query it

- Forwarded message from Drew Parsons - Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:43:48 +0800 From: Drew Parsons To: 802...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#802241: please store the hash of the installed .deb and allow to query it Reply-To: dpars...@debian.org,

dpkg/gcc-8 regressions

hi, from irc: [14:52] < h01ger> | vgrntc: moin :) https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/unstable/amd64/stats_pkg_state.png looks like we are regressing. havent looked closer though. also visible on other archs, eg arm64 (amd armhf and i386 to a lesser degree)

Re: RFC: dpkg patch to using -ffile-prefix-map

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 04:54:09AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > --- a/scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Debian.pm > > > +++ b/scripts/Dpkg/Vendor/Debian.pm [...] thanks for your work on this, Guillem! (and Vagrant of course too!) Not sure we attributed Guillem corrently on this in

Re: koji_1.16.0-2_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:41:25PM -0400, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > Secondly, I would like to propose renaming the current "koji-common" > package to "python{,3}-koji" (IOW, we'd also build it for Python 3), > which would make it be have the same name as in Fedora. WDYT? I think you should

Re: distributing .buildinfo files (Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master)

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:43:04AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > So what would be needed to make at least a simple export of the data > happen? I think the requirements I'd have are these: that's a good question! :) maybe we can sit together with some ftp-team and reproducible builds folks in

Re: [rb-general] Please review the draft for week 156's blog post

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 08:32:18AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > Please review the draft for week 156's blog post: > https://reproducible.alioth.debian.org/blog/drafts/156/ I get a 404 here. the old url should still be working :) -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: PGP

Bug#894217: reprotest: robust mode to make it usuable in CI pipelines

control: retitle -1 "reprotest: robust mode to make it usuable in CI pipelines" control: severity -1 wishlist # trying to summarize this feature request # thanks hi, maybe there could be a robust mode using "safe" locales and another mode, thoroughly testing stuff... -- cheers, Holger

Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors

Dear Chris, On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 03:36:55PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > I'm sorry this appears to have upset you so much I'm afraid I'm > somewhat struggling to see the full extent why. and > Naturally, if I thought this would have been a problem I would not have > pushed the button. sure,

Bug#910541: diffoscope: filing bugs on diffoscope is cumbersome for non-Debian contributors

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 04:34:39PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > I'd like to hear what potential bug reporters would like to see, rather > > than us trying to guess what they might think; therefore, I believe this > > bug should (well, could) be deferred to in-person discussion in

Bug#910542: better support for OCaml object files via ocamlobjinfo

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:00:35PM -0400, Chris Lamb wrote: > Thanks for the report. I've implemented this in Git, now pending upload: > > https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/diffoscope/commit/bc92ac311960b43abd1067df83ddee1729dc38bd awesome, thank you! -- cheers, Holger

Bug#905885: diffoscope: skipping tests on ci.debian.net is perhaps wrong?

Control: retitle -1 'allow to override @skip_unless_tools_exist during tests and fail the test if the tool is missing' -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org

Bug#909694: reprotest: please export DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=reproducible=+all

Package: reprotest Version: 0.7.8 Severity: important Dear Maintainer, < KGB-1> | Mattia Rizzolo master 4860753 jenkins.debian.net bin/reproducible_build.sh * https://deb.li/v57l < KGB-1> reproducible debian: enable all the reproducible-related build flags from dpkg, by

Bug#910541: salsa is fine

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 05:11:30PM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > This is all fine, but issues on salsa diffoscope project are still > disabled. any objections to me enabling them? :) -- cheers, Holger

Bug#910541: [rb-general] salsa is fine

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 07:05:49PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > any objections to me enabling them? :) > Yes and no. :) :) > As in; I have nothing against moving to salsa (!) if we go that route, > we should just first firmly decide whether the BTS or salsa is the > canonical source of truth. I

Bug#910541: [rb-general] salsa is fine

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 07:19:46PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > My reading of this is that (ignoring Debian-specific issues as they > are an "easy" case IMHO) salsa becomes the single source of truth; ie. > we both encourage and at least aim to forward/refile all "upstream" > bugs to Salsa.

Bug#920732: strip-nondeterminism should normalize file ownerships in epubs too

Package: strip-nondeterminism Version: 1.1.0-1 Severity: wishlist Hi, debian-edu-doc 2.10.11 when tested on tests.r-b.o shows this: │ │ │ ├── ./usr/share/doc/debian-edu-doc-da/debian-edu-buster-manual.epub │ │ │ │ ├── bsdtar -tvf {} │ │ │ │ │ @@ -1,54 +1,54 @@ │ │ │ │ │ drwxr-xr-x 0 0 0

Bug#926065: unblock: diffoscope/113

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package diffoscope, it has been in sid for 26 days without any regressions reported (compared to 112 in buster currently) and has been used to compare all unreproducible

Re: Buildd-setup faffing around with __FILE__ breaks my unit tests.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:41:10PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote: > (Please keep me CC'ed. Not subscribed) ack. > If you have magic regexes to auto tag issues, lines matching > /WARNING: .* testdata .* could not be located!/ > would probably find those where it applies to current test cases, at

Re: Buildd-setup faffing around with __FILE__ breaks my unit tests.

Hi Sune, thanks for reaching out to us! On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 07:54:16PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote: > (Please keep me CC'ed. Not subscribed) done. > The latest incarnations of the reproducible build autobuilder setup passes > some options to gcc to not let __FILE__ actualy be the full file

Re: Buildd-setup faffing around with __FILE__ breaks my unit tests.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 03:58:15PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:34:27 PM CET Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 07:54:16PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote: > > > (Please keep me CC'ed. Not subscribed) > > done. > thanks. and agai

Re: Bug#869184: dpkg: source uploads including _amd64.buildinfo cause problems

Hi, On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 07:24:56PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 08:38:36AM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 11:48:27AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 20:28:57

Bug#929397: ftp.d.o: please upload LTS .buildinfo files to ftp-master

Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: wishlist hi, from #-security today: * | h01ger wonders how to tackle #862538 zwiebelbot | (#debian-security) Debian#862538: security.debian.org: Please POST .buildinfo files to buildinfo.debian.net -

Re: what to do with stretch?

Hi, Mattia, thanks for bringing this up! On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 10:42:50AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > Today buster is being released, and I think we will do some shuffling to > copy the buster data into the new bullseye shortly after, so we can > start test for that as well. yup. (though

Re: Bits from the Release Team: ride like the wind, Bullseye!

Hi, On Sun, Jul 07, 2019 at 02:47:00AM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Shortly before the end of the 6th July, we released Debian 10, "buster". *yay* *yay* & *yay*! > No binary maintainer uploads for bullseye > = > > The release of buster also means

Re: Bug#934405: debhelper: Please ignore binNMUs in get_source_date_epoch() function

Hi, thanks for filing a bug report about this issue. However... On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:24:37PM +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > I figured out that these timestamps are coming from binNMU changelogs. yes, binNMUs change the sources, despite their name. they are a hack. see #894441: 'binNMUs

Bug#936806: koji: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 07:22:19AM +, Matthias Klose wrote: > Package: src:koji > Version: 1.16.2-1 [...] > Your package either build-depends, depends on Python2, or uses Python2 > in the autopkg tests. Please stop using Python2, and fix this issue > by one of the following actions. koji

Re: Bug#939387: Please provide a way to rebuild the package with debian/changelog-only changes

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 10:07:26AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > I see this is a native package. Why don't you use the version in > debian/changelog to generate diffoscope/__init__.py? If this was not a > native package, or if the version number would otherwise naturally split > in two parts, I

[ty...@mit.edu: Re: And in 2019? Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?]

FYI, (I guess we know already :) - Forwarded message from "Theodore Y. Ts'o" - Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:44:34 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Steffen Möller Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: And in 2019? Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion

Re: [Git][qa/jenkins.debian.net] reproducible: vary BUILDDIR for 2nd build so that the path length also

Hi, I've deployed the following change now. If this causes significantly more breakage than before we should probably/maybe revert it again... On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 03:13:56PM +, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Vagrant Cascadian pushed to branch master at Debian QA / jenkins.debian.net > >

Re: "Reproducible Builds - aiming for bullseye" comments and a purpose

hi Jathan, fun fact: if you don't cc: me, you usually get a faster reply from me. On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 08:47:46PM -0500, jathan wrote: > Today I attended the talk "Reproducible Builds - aiming for bullseye" at > DebConf19 and I want to share some comments since some things I consider > we are

Bug#932849: ftp.debian.org: NEW process looses .buildinfo files

Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal hi, https://tracker.debian.org/news/1027072/accepted-liblogger-simple-perl-20-1-source-all-into-unstable-unstable/ says this upload was made with a .buildinfo file, yet this .buildinfo file isnt available this was on 2019-02-04 any idea why this

Re: Second build of kronosnet fails on i386

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:17:23PM -0300, wf...@niif.hu wrote: > As > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/i386/kronosnet.html > shows, the first build succeeds, but the second one hits a failure in > the build time unit tests. This has been rather consistent for several

#763822: ftp.debian.org: please include .buildinfo files in the archive

Dear ftp team, it would be very cool if you could comment on this bug, even though there is https://buildinfos.debian.net/ftp-master.debian.org/ and https://buildinfos.debian.net/buildinfo-pool/ now. Distributing .buildinfo files is one requirement for making reproducible builds a reality for

Bug#944882: diffoscope: please (at least) include hint in html that text version has no max report size

Package: diffoscope Version: 1.30 Severity: minor Dear diffoscope maintainers, (some aspects of) the current behavior of diffoscope and 'max report size' is as: - only considered for html output, but not for text (where it is unlimited), default is 400kb max. I'd like to suggest: - increase

bit by bit identical chroot creation (was Re: Debian and our frenemies of containers and userland repos)

Hi, this just went by on debian-devel@l.d.o: On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:43:18PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: [...] > Downloading "random binary from the internet" is less of a problem if we can > create images which are bit-by-bit identical to checksums that we can verify > through a trusted

Re: bit by bit identical chroot creation (was Re: Debian and our frenemies of containers and userland repos)

Hi josch, On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:49:50AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > And, does this work for mmdebstrap'ing buster too? (whether using > > mmdebstrap from unstable or buster...) > lets find out! hehe, thanks! > $ sudo mmdebstrap --include=mmdebstrap,debootstrap,diffutils buster

Re: bit by bit identical chroot creation (was Re: Debian and our frenemies of containers and userland repos)

Hi josch, On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:34:23AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > the sha256sums are the sums computed from the output of mmdebstrap on stdout > (notice the pipe character in front of the sha256sum command). ah, thanks. Seems i got tricked into the thinking mmdebstrap would output

re: #774415: devscripts: please add the srebuild wrapper for reproducible builds

hi, so I thought I'd be bold and add the srebuild wrapper to src:devscripts in git this weekend... So I re-read https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=774415 rather completly and noticed, that - the branch devscripts-srebuild from https://salsa.debian.org/yadd/devscripts for a long

Re: Cloning reproducible-builds environment

Hi Jeff, sorry for the delay in responding... On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 07:05:22PM +0100, Jeff wrote: > On 24/10/2019 20:24, Holger Levsen wrote: > > it wont be exactly the same but reprotest (from the package with that > > name) should let you test more variations than just usi

Re: Bug#936806: koji: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 04:06:23PM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > so for the record: while I can easily workaround the above problem by using > > a > > Fedora based VM to download updates for my Qubes dom0, I'd be glad to help > > people to get yum, dnf and rpm back into Debian, eg

Re: Bug#936806: koji: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:21:46PM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > ok, whos of the maintainers is working on packaging 1.18? i see > there's even 1.20 released. noone, I believe. Also because it needs dnf, which is not packaged for Debian at all. I was just going to remove myself from uploaders in

Re: Bug#936806: koji: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 01:36:33AM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > yep i came across all of them starting from python-lzma -- do you know > what's the status of the "RedHat infrastructure" in debian? many (if > not all) of those tools are relatively old, not maintained (or just in > life support mode)

Bug#942146: koji: CVE-2019-17109

Hi Salvatore, On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 09:02:20PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Any news on this issue? AFAICT, the issue is fixed as well in 1.16.3, > so the smaller jump should be possible. Once fixed in unstable, can > you adress the issue as well via point release? I think it's

Bug#942146: koji: CVE-2019-17109

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 08:42:03PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Let's remove it in the upcoming stretch/buster point releases, then? seems reasonable to me. -- cheers, Holger ---

Re: Bug#936806: koji: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 09:55:58AM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > i was mostly querying the status of it, i cant even find an ITP for dnf. exactly. > i was talking about removing koji entirely from debian, an RM to > ftp.d.o; is that not what you mean? right, this is also in order. -- cheers,

Re: Bug#936806: koji: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Hi, On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:12:20AM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > I mean, rpm is definitly still useful to have on Debian, but yum and > > friends??? > They are also useful in some cases. For example if you want to use > Debian-based VM to download updates for your Qubes

Re: Bug#869184: dpkg: source uploads including _amd64.buildinfo cause problems

hi Guillem, On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 11:55:38AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Actually, I guess the other option that might be an option for stable is > to make dpkg-buildpackage generate the buildinfo file itself, and on > source-only uploads force the name to be _source.buildinfo regardless > of

Re: Bug#936806: koji: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 08:14:11PM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > thanks! I'm gonna go ahead and file an RM bug for the following pkgs > too: yum createrepo python-lzma yum-metadata-parser mock yum-utils > dtc-xen deltarpm > > they are a closed set thank you for cleaning up after all of us, now

Re: notes repository shared with all DDs

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 03:33:08PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > I just shared the notes repository¹ with the "Debian" group, therefore > giving all DDs write access to it. > It's my attempt to invite more direct contributions instead of MRs :) neato, very & many thanks for doing this too! (and

Bug#955123: debrebuild: please provide --sbuild-output-only option

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.2 Severity: wishlist Dear Maintainer, when running debrebuild it produces output, first instructions how to rebuild manually and second, how to rebuild using sbuild. For automating this it would be very useful to have a --sbuild-output-only switch, which would

Bug#955050: debrebuild: please accepted signed .buildinfo files

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.2 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, please make debrebuild not fail on signed .buildinfo files: $ debrebuild bash_5.0-6_amd64.buildinfo debrebuild: error: syntax error in bash_5.0-6_amd64.buildinfo at line 1: OpenPGP signature not allowed here -- cheers,

Bug#955049: debrebuild: no manpage and no --help option

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.2 Severity: normal x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org Dear Maintainer, debrebuild has no manpage and no --help option, so it's a bit hard to get started using it. Please add both. -- cheers, Holger

Bug#955051: debrebuild: Build-Architecture fields are optional but debrebuild mandates them

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.2 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, $ debrebuild bash_5.0-6_amd64.buildinfo Use of uninitialized value in split at /usr/bin/debrebuild line 55. need Build-Architecture field at /usr/bin/debrebuild line 70. $ It seems that debrebuild needs a Build-Architecture

Bug#955280: debrebuild: please stop using the reproducible-builds.org apt repo

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.2 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, $ grep reproducible /usr/bin/debrebuild my $armored_key = "$tempdir/etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/reproducible.asc"; my $dearmored_key = "$tempdir/etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/reproducible.gpg";

Bug#955434: tracker.d.o: please integrate information from buildinfos.debian.net

Package: tracker.debian.org Severity: wishlist Dear Maintainer, please integrate information from buildinfos.debian.net into tracker.d.o, which is a different view/aspect of reproducible builds of Debian packages than the one currently integrated. The current one is about the results from

Bug#955298: debrebuild: please switch from httpredir.d.o to deb.d.o

Package: devscripts Version: 2.19.5+deb10u1 Severity: wishlist x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org Dear Maintainer, please switch from using httpredir.debian.org to deb.debian.org: $ grep httpredir /usr/bin/debrebuild deb http://httpredir.debian.org/debian/ $base_dist

Bug#955308: debrebuild: also explain *how* to use snapshot.d.o

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.2 Severity: wishlist Dear Maintainer, debrebuild uses snapshot.d.o to install packages and it also gives some hints how to set up sbuild. However it doesn't tell that apt has to be instructured to ignored expires signatures, as else snapshot.d.o is not usuable

Bug#955307: debrebuild: should avoid downgrades

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.2 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, this bug report is a bit premature, as currently debrebuild does not setup the chroot debrebuild (or rather the sbuild command generated by debrebuild), but anyway, let's file a bug to track this problem and improve upon: I

Bug#955304: debrebuild: suggested sbuild command should use --no-run-lintian

Package: devscripts Version: 2.19.5+deb10u1 Severity: wishlist Dear Maintainer, Subject says it all: debrebuild should suggest (or run, see #955123) to use the --no-run-lintian switch for sbuild. -- cheers, Holger

Bug#958666: lintian: please downgrade mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure warning

package: lintian version: 2.67.0 x-debbugs-cc: Debian Med Project List , Debian Developers , Debian Lintian Maintainers , reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 09:56:24AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > today I've seen the first time this new lintian warning: > >

Re: M2-Planet v1.6.0 and mescc-tools v1.0.0 released

On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 08:58:47AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > > A K+R C equivalent C compiler, assembler, linker, dwarf stub generator > > and shell able to produce fully standards compliant ELF binaries for > > Knight, x86, AMD64, armv7l and aarch64 and be bootstrapped from a sub > >

Bug#958750: debrebuild: please add --standalone mode or --one-shot-mode

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.2 Severity: wishlist x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org Dear Maintainer, debrebuild expects a working sbuild setup, which is a sensible expectation. It would however also be nice if it had a --standalone mode or --one-shot-mode which would

Re: Update blacklist for armhf

Hi Vagrant, On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:38:40PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > As mentioned on irc to holger and mattia, I reviewed packages that ought > to get blacklisted on armhf, as they almost always timeout on builds, so > they consume CPU, RAM and disk that could be better used testing

Re: Update blacklist for armhf

hi, On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:15:11AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Thanks! Should be able to handle future updates myself now! :) great. feel free to also blacklist some big packages on i386, which is also lagging quite a bit behind. > Running as the "jenkins" user was what I was

Re: [announce] diffoscope 144 released

Dear Chris, On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:58:03PM -, Chris Lamb wrote: > The diffoscope maintainers are please to announce the release of > version 145 of diffoscope. \o/ > diffoscope tries to get to the bottom of what makes files or > directories different. [...] > Version 145 includes the

Re: Enabling -ffile-prefix-map by default

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 09:35:52AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > Could you provide a dpkg package in a private repo (or in experimental) > > with that enabled by default? And ideally a script similar to > > https://salsa.debian.org/lucas/collab-qa-tools/-/blob/master/modes/gcc10 > > to

Re: Evaluation of bundling .buildinfo in .deb proposal

Dear Chris, On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:02:03PM -, Chris Lamb wrote: > (As an obiter dictum, are we sure it was Holger who was proposing this > idea in the talk, rather than mentioning it? I think he has previously > echoed my view on the "no special tools" principle, hence this minor >

Re: Evaluation of bundling .buildinfo in .deb proposal

Hi Guillem (& others), On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 03:38:27AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Holger proposed to bundle the .buildinfo files into .deb archives > during the DebConf talk. I've mentioned to Holger that I'm not seeing > this as being feasible and mentioned various reasons why, but I'm

Re: Bug#969084: buildd.d.o: please don't use a tainted buildenv

Hi, On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:45:31PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:01:01AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Well I would say that we have a solution but not yet the patch, but > > anyway I'll plan to work on writing a patch in the next days. > Oh, great! > thank you

Re: Bug#969084: buildd.d.o: please don't use a tainted buildenv

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 04:25:56PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > thanks for that info! maybe dpkg could treat /usr/local not as tainted if > > the > > only file in /usr/local is /usr/local/sbin/policy-rc.d ? > While we could perhaps add an exception in the Debian vendor profile. > It does look

Re: Bug#969084: buildd.d.o: please don't use a tainted buildenv

control: tags -1 patch On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 11:11:22AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/policy-rcd-declarative > is a good solution to this: install that package, then instead of > dropping that file into /usr/local/sbin/policy-rc.d, do > echo ".* .* deny"

Bug#969084: buildd.d.o: please don't use a tained buildenv

Package: buildd.debian.org Severity: wishlist User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: environment Dear buildd maintainers, since a while dpkg adds a small note to a .buildinfo if /usr/local/sbin is populated (which I'm not sure I agree is sensible, but it's what dpkg

talk about reproducible bullseye in <5h

hi, tonight at DebConf20 online: Reproducing Bullseye in practice Speaker: Holger Levsen Time: Aug 27 (Thu): 19:00 UTC Duration: 0:45 The goal of this talk is to give a an update on the state of Reproducible Builds for the upcoming Debian “bullseye” release, focussing on the promise

Re: Bug#969084: buildd.d.o: please don't use a tainted buildenv

hi, adding Guillem to the loop (and preserving a full quote for him). On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 03:00:43PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Hi, > > On 2020-08-27 13:25, Holger Levsen wrote: > > Package: buildd.debian.org > > Severity: wishlist > > User: reproducible-bui

Bug#969098: debrebuild: fails to download some packages from snapshot.d.o

Package: devscripts Version: 2.19.5+deb10u1 Severity: normal User: devscri...@packages.debian.org Usertags: debrebuild Hi, Sometimes debrebuild fails to download some packages from snapshot.d.o even though they exist: "cannot find dash/0.5.10.2-5/amd64 in dumpavail"

Bug#961859: reproducible-check: should not show results on Ubuntu and other distros != Debian

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net hi, reproducible-check should not show any results on Ubuntu as Ubuntu is not involved in Reproducible Builds and not doing any efforts. TTBOMK they also don't publish their

Bug#961858: reproducible-check: should be explicit about just showing CI results

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal hi, reproducible-check shows how many of the installed binary packages are (un)reproducible in our current CI framework, that is these results only show the theoretical reproducibility of these Debian pacakges, they *do not* however show any

Bug#961861: debrebuild: should (optionally) download the source too

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, even though current .buildinfo files in Debian don't contain the hashes of the source package (as we mandated in our original design) it would be great if debrebuild could, at least optionally also download the source

Bug#961864: debrebuild: creates wrong commandline for binNMUs

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, debrebuild creates wrong commandlines for binNMU, because the source field in .buildinfo files looks different for binNMUs than normal uploads. Normal uploads have these entries: Source: libqcow Version: 20181227-1.1

Bug#961862: debrebuild: should assemble the source for binNMUs

package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net Dear Maintainer, TTBOMK currently there is no tool to assemble the source for a binNMU. The source for a binNMU has do be assembled like this: - take the normal source package and

Bug#961857: reproducible-check: incomprehensive and too good results

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net Hi, on a sid system I get this when running reproducible-check from devscripts: $ reproducible-check alsa-lib (1.2.2-2.1) is unreproducible (libasound2)

Bug#961064: reprotest: use of faketime causes newly created file to have very old modified time

control: retitle -1 reprotest: should not default to vary time and date thanks Hi James, thanks for your bug report! On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:49:58PM -0400, James Valleroy wrote: > time(): 1631998736 > touch($cacheFile); > clearstatcache(); // has no effect > filemtime($cacheFile):

Re: Bug#875306: python-debian: include a type for buildinfo files

Hi Stuart, thank you very much for your work on adding .buildinfo support for python-debian! On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 05:32:19PM +1100, Stuart Prescott wrote: > The .buildinfo files have two places where interpreting the values seems > worthwhile: > > Environment: split the lines and

Re: Bug#875306: python-debian: include a type for buildinfo files

hi Stuart, On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 07:05:43PM +1100, Stuart Prescott wrote: > ah, I'd not seen one of these in action. I should go find some additional > buildinfo files to > play with. download https://buildinfos.debian.net/buildinfo-pool.list (it's 100M) and search for +b1, +b2 etc >

Re: To do tasks in Reproducible Builds

Hi Jathan, On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 04:10:25PM -0500, jathan wrote: > I was visiting the Reproducible Builds websitesite and the Debian Salsa > repo looking for some list of "To do tasks" in the team. Do we have > something to view which tasks need to be done with priorities or how do > you

Bug#964722: debrebuild: please add option for rebuilding in the same path

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.4 Severity: wishlist User: devscri...@packages.debian.org Usertags: debrebuild Dear Maintainer, please add an option (--rebuild-in-same-path?) for rebuilding in the same path as the .buildinfo specified. Thus the generated sbuild call needs to call sbuild using

Bug#964733: debrebuild: parsable output

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.4 Severity: wishlist User: devscri...@packages.debian.org Usertags: debrebuild Dear Maintainer, currently srebuild creates output which is ment to (be parsed and) executed, thus it would be really nice if the output was easily parsable, IOW this should be added

Re: Debonf20 Online talk proposal?

On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 04:16:37PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Has anyone already submitted a Reproducible Builds talk proposal for > Debconf20 (which is now, unsurprisingly, scheduled to take place > online)? [...] > There is a dealine of July 5th! not yet, but I will within the next 4h.

Re: Enabling -ffile-prefix-map by default

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 02:27:50PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > I've pushed to git: > > https://salsa.debian.org/qa/jenkins.debian.net/-/commit/f2a447eacfe375951476f369c8b61f02891d97c7 cool, thanks. > Refreshing my memory on how to deploy it by reading the docs... once > that's done, we

Bug#966256: reprotest: fails with diffoscope 153

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 08:07:53PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Ideally it could check the version of diffoscope used and pass the > appropriate argument... > > On closer look, the --exclude-directory-metadata=yes|no syntax was > introduced in 112 (present in buster at least), so it might be

Fwd: Porting the standard image from live-wrapper to live-build

FYI, and cheers to Roland! - Forwarded message from Roland Clobus - Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:54:14 +0100 From: Roland Clobus To: debian-l...@lists.debian.org, debian...@lists.debian.org Subject: Porting the standard image from live-wrapper to live-build Message-ID:

Re: #961764: texi2html: texi2html embeds User and Date information in generated .html files

hi, I dropped the bug from cc:... On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 07:10:47PM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > I've read: > > https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org > > But did not see anything about what the process for a QA upload was... > Well, pabs pointed me to the devref and encouraged me to

Bug#975261: diffoscope: install footprint is 2.6GB, please move some recommends to suggests

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 06:35:11PM +, Ximin Luo wrote: > I have managed to figure out that by moving the following Recommends to > Suggests one can cut the footprint from 2.6GB to about 64MB which is much more > reasonable. Therefore please do that. These are ordered roughly by size: maybe

Bug#975261: diffoscope: install footprint is 2.6GB, please move some recommends to suggests

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:45:43AM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > - diffoscope-full with the packages as recommends > I reckon this "type" should stay named "diffoscope", what it currently > is. So current users still get what they currently get. agreed, that's better. -- cheers,

Bug#975096: diffoscope: sources for some test files missing

Package: diffoscope Version: 161 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, building diffoscope 161 results in the following lintian warnings and errors which we should fix, because also tests should ship their sources (in general, there are some exceptions...) E: diffoscope source: source-is-missing

Bug#975094: reprotest: tox testsuite is not run during build

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 02:08:49PM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Control: merge 975094 966333 oh! thanks! :) I agree with disabling skip_missing_interpreters, so I will do this right now in git... -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁

Bug#930997: Unintentional i386 compiles

control: tags -1 +help Hi Olek, On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:59:59PM -0500, Olek Wojnar wrote: > Hi reprotest maintainers, Sadly I have to admit that with these words you nailed the main current problem with reprotest: there are no real reprotest maintainers. I mean we, the reproducible builds

  1   2   3   >