Здравейте,
Нашата
компания е производител на изделия от
дърво. Всеки от нашите артикули е продукт
на творчеството и майсторските умения на
нашите занаятчии.
БЕЗПЛАТНА ДОСТАВКА за всяка поръчка
над 50 лв. с опция за преглед преди
плащане.
Подарък ИЗНЕНАДА за поръчки над 100
лв.
Разгледайте
още от
Source: polymake
Version: 2.14-2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: randomness
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hi,
While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed
that polymake could not be bu
Hi,
here are several questions I have which, for me boil down to information being
duplicated and stored in different locations, leading to possible confusion for
contributors and added work when adding new bugs and issues:
1. Why is the set of bts usertags different from the set of r-b issues? T
Hi Vagrant,
On Dienstag, 28. Juli 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> I am subscribed to the list as of a few weeks ago.
ok cool!
> > yes, we either need to make sure to manually build there in future too,
> > or setup some autobuilders...
> Would it be feasible to use the same machines for that?
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 06:48:15PM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> In order to achieve reproducible builds in U-Boot, timestamps that are defined
> at build-time have to be somewhat eliminated. The SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
> environment
> variable allows setting a fixed value for those timestamps.
>
On 2015-07-28, Holger Levsen wrote:
> do you need to be cc:ed?
I am subscribed to the list as of a few weeks ago.
> On Montag, 27. Juli 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> So I set about trying to patch u-boot and test reproducibility myself,
>> only to discover that the reproducible toolchain did
Hi Vagrant,
do you need to be cc:ed?
On Montag, 27. Juli 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Thanks for all your work on reproducible builds!
:-) Thanks for helping on the armhf hardware side! :-)
> So I set about trying to patch u-boot and test reproducibility myself,
> only to discover that the
binary:debbindiff is NEW.
source:debbindiff is NEW.
Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action
from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good
OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient.
Packages are routinely proc
control: tags -1 + pending
thanks
Hi Wolfgang,
On Freitag, 24. Juli 2015, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> In devscripts/stable, debbindiff is mentioned both in the long
> package description as well as in debdiff(1). However, debbindiff
> does not exist in stable. A backport to Jessie would be nice.
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + pending
Bug #793460 [debbindiff] debbindiff: please consider backport to Jessie
Added tag(s) pending.
--
793460: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=793460
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
__
debbindiff_26~bpo8+1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
debbindiff_26~bpo8+1.dsc
debbindiff_26~bpo8+1.tar.xz
debbindiff_26~bpo8+1_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
debbindiff_26~bpo8+1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to
ftp-master.debian.org
along with the files:
debbindiff_26~bpo8+1.dsc
debbindiff_26~bpo8+1.tar.xz
debbindiff_26~bpo8+1_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host coccia.debian.org)
___
12 matches
Mail list logo
