Re: [Reproducible-builds] b-d recommends

Hi Clint, On Freitag, 31. Juli 2015, Clint Adams wrote: > No, the point is that if someone rebuilds a package with Recommends > installed, a different .deb can be produced from what the buildds would > produce in clean, Recommends-less chroots. This seemed to me to be within > the scope of your p

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#794372: FTBFS: undefined reference to Glib::filename_display_basename

Source: gigedit Version: 0.2.0-1 Severity: serious Tags: sid stretch Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs Dear Maintainer, The package fails to build: .../../src/gigedit/.libs/libgigedit.s

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#794374: FTBFS: undefined reference to `Exiv2::Metadatum::print[abi:cxx11](Exiv2::ExifData const*) const'

Source: geeqie Version: 1:1.2-3 Severity: serious Tags: sid stretch Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs Dear Maintainer, The package fails to build: exiv2.o: In function `exif_add_value_t

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#794375: FTBFS: pry/cli.rb: undefined method `new' for Slop:Module (NoMethodError)

Source: cucumber Version: 2.0.0-2 Severity: serious Tags: sid stretch Justification: fails to build from source User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs Dear Maintainer, The package fails to build: /usr/bin/ruby2.1 /usr/bin/rspec --pattern ./spec/\*\*/\*_spec.rb -r json

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#794376: FTBFS: undefined reference to `boost::program_options::detail::cmdline::cmdline'

Source: fracplanet Version: 0.4.0-3 Severity: serious Tags: sid Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs Dear Maintainer, The package fails to build: obj/fracplanet.o: In function `boost::pr

Re: [Reproducible-builds] ARM build machines

Hi Vagrant, On Samstag, 1. August 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > But wait, there's more: > cbxi4pro-armhf-rb.debian.net: hehe, nice, thanks, I'm configuring that one now too..! :-) > It is considerably more capable, sure. The individual cores on the > Banana PI might be a little more powerful,

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#794395: classified-ads: please make the build reproducible

Source: classified-ads Version: 0.07-1 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: timestamps X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Hi! While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed that classified-ads cou

[Reproducible-builds] Processing of debbindiff_28_amd64.changes

debbindiff_28_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: debbindiff_28.dsc debbindiff_28.tar.gz debbindiff_28_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) ___ Reproducible-bui

[Reproducible-builds] debbindiff_28_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:21:52 +0200 Source: debbindiff Binary: debbindiff Architecture: source all Version: 28 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Reproducible builds folks Changed-By: Jérémy Bobbio Descripti

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#794347: marked as done ("AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'add_details'" while processing dh-ocaml_1.0.9_amd64.changes)

Your message dated Sun, 02 Aug 2015 15:34:49 + with message-id and subject line Bug#794347: fixed in debbindiff 28 has caused the Debian Bug report #794347, regarding "AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'add_details'" while processing dh-ocaml_1.0.9_amd64.changes to be marked

Re: [Reproducible-builds] ARM build machines

Hi, https://reproducible.debian.net/index_repositories.html now shows missing armhf binaries too, so we can see which binNMUs we need to do... Next thing to do: fix dpkg as described in http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/reproducible-builds/Week-of-Mon-20150727/002569.html You might also

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#794398: clhep: please make the build reproducible

Source: clhep Version: 2.1.4.1-1.1 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: locale X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Hi! While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed that clhep could not be built r

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#794399: parsec47: please make the build reproducible

Source: parsec47 Version: 0.2.dfsg1-6 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: locale X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Hi! While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed that parsec47 could not be b

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#794400: tumiki-fighters: please make the build reproducible

Source: tumiki-fighters Version: 0.2.dfsg1-6 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: locale X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Hi! While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed that tumiki-fighters

[Reproducible-builds] package uploaded to our repo

debbindiff_28.dsc has just been uploaded to https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/ExperimentalToolchain ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reprodu

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#786596: marked as done (still unicode problems: 'ascii' codec can't encode characters in position 64-65: ordinal not in range(128))

Your message dated Sun, 2 Aug 2015 22:20:29 + with message-id <2015080029.ga21...@chase.mapreri.org> and subject line Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#786596: still unicode problems: 'ascii' codec can't encode characters in position 64-65: ordinal not in range(128) has caused the Debian Bug

[Reproducible-builds] Reproducibility vs signatures

At some point we're hopefully going to support Secure Boot on amd64. That means there will be a signed kernel image (separate from the current linux-image packages) and a signed GRUB image. The kernel modules in the linux-image packages will also be signed, probably with an ephemeral key. All the