[Reproducible-builds] Bug#793460: marked as done (debbindiff: please consider backport to Jessie)

Your message dated Mon, 3 Aug 2015 23:20:50 + with message-id <20150803232050.ga32...@chase.mapreri.org> and subject line debbindiff landed in jessie-backports has caused the Debian Bug report #793460, regarding debbindiff: please consider backport to Jessie to be marked as done. This means th

[Reproducible-builds] GSoC 2015 Week 10: Move forward reproducible builds

Hello, This week I have been working on the following problems: 1- Packages which are marked as affected by timestamps_in_manpages_generated_by_doxygen [1]: Patches were submitted for the following packages: - Package: libsyncml https://bugs.debian.org/794225 - Package: zipios++ https://bugs.d

[Reproducible-builds] diffoscope_29_amd64.changes is NEW

binary:diffoscope is NEW. source:diffoscope 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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] ARM build machines

Hi, On Montag, 3. August 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Oops. Accidentally dropped it on one of the debian.net updates. Re-added > just now, got the ack that it was added, now just need to wait for DNS > propagation... thanks! > (as you may notice, they're all CNAMEs with a consistant pattern

Re: [Reproducible-builds] ARM build machines

On 2015-08-03, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Samstag, 1. August 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> wbq0-armhf-rb.debian.net: > > $ host wbq0-armhf-rb.debian.net > Host wbq0-armhf-rb.debian.net not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) Oops. Accidentally dropped it on one of the debian.net updates. Re-added just now, got

[Reproducible-builds] Processing of diffoscope_29_amd64.changes

/diffoscope_29_amd64.changes is already present on target host: diffoscope_29_all.deb Either you already uploaded it, or someone else came first. Job diffoscope_29_amd64.changes removed. Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) _

[Reproducible-builds] Processing of diffoscope_29_amd64.changes

diffoscope_29_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: diffoscope_29.dsc diffoscope_29.tar.gz debbindiff_29_all.deb diffoscope_29_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)

Re: [Reproducible-builds] ARM build machines

Hi Vagrant, On Samstag, 1. August 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > wbq0-armhf-rb.debian.net: $ host wbq0-armhf-rb.debian.net Host wbq0-armhf-rb.debian.net not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) The others resolve just fine. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Reproducibility vs signatures

Hi, On Montag, 3. August 2015, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Only the FTP team will be able to get shim signed by the Microsoft CA. > Only the FTP team will be able to sign GRUB and the kernel using the > private key for which the public part is embedded in shim. > > Users can add further trusted keys a

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Reproducibility vs signatures

On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 12:46 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Montag, 3. August 2015, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > See . > > Thanks. > > That seems to say that a.) only the kernel team can sign kernels, so no user > signed kernels

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Reproducibility vs signatures

Hi, On Montag, 3. August 2015, Ben Hutchings wrote: > See . Thanks. That seems to say that a.) only the kernel team can sign kernels, so no user signed kernels?? and b.) only amd64, while I believe uefi arm mainboards are there alre

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Reproducibility vs signatures

On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 12:27 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Montag, 3. August 2015, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > That sort of works as long as there's only one architecture we want to > > do this for. But the ability to verify modules is useful in general so > > I would like to turn that on

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Reproducibility vs signatures

Hi, On Montag, 3. August 2015, Ben Hutchings wrote: > That sort of works as long as there's only one architecture we want to > do this for. But the ability to verify modules is useful in general so > I would like to turn that on for all architectures. how is this going to work for builds on buil

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Reproducibility vs signatures

On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 10:27 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > Ben Hutchings: > > 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

[Reproducible-builds] debbindiff_26~bpo8+1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into jessie-backports, jessie-backports

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:36:25 +0200 Source: debbindiff Binary: debbindiff Architecture: source all Version: 26~bpo8+1 Distribution: jessie-backports Urgency: medium Maintainer: Reproducible builds folks Changed-By: Holger

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [RFC PATCH] Makefile: Add SOURCE_DATE_TZ

Le samedi 01 août 2015 à 22:32 +1200, Chris Packham a écrit : > Along with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH SOURCE_DATE_TZ can be used to recreate a > build with a specific date timestamp. This allows the verification of > source supplied with a pre-compiled binary. > > If SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is supplied SOURCE_DA

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [RFC PATCH] Makefile: Add SOURCE_DATE_TZ

On 01/08/15 20:47, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > Le samedi 01 août 2015 à 22:32 +1200, Chris Packham a écrit : >> Along with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH SOURCE_DATE_TZ can be used to recreate a >> build with a specific date timestamp. This allows the verification of >> source supplied with a pre-compiled binary

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [RFC PATCH] Makefile: Add SOURCE_DATE_TZ

On 02/08/15 00:02, Ximin Luo wrote: > However, I am not sure that us at Reproducible Builds will actually adopt > this variable. We haven't talked about it beyond my previous email [1], it > was just me quickly skimming off my thoughts and firing off quick ideas. Whoops, I mean the _TZ variable.

[Reproducible-builds] [RFC PATCH] Makefile: Add SOURCE_DATE_TZ

Along with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH SOURCE_DATE_TZ can be used to recreate a build with a specific date timestamp. This allows the verification of source supplied with a pre-compiled binary. If SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is supplied SOURCE_DATE_TZ can be used to specify what will appear in the output of the versi

[Reproducible-builds] [PATCH v2] Makefile: Use correct timezone for U_BOOT_TZ

When building with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH the timezone is in UTC. When building normally the timezone is taken from the build machine's locale setting. Signed-off-by: Chris Packham Tested-by: Bin Meng Tested-by: Paul Kocialkowski --- Changes in v2: - Collect some tested-by tags - Remove reference t

[Reproducible-builds] [PATCH] Makefile: Use correct timezone for U_BOOT_TZ

When building with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH the timezone is in UTC. When building normally the timezone is taken from the build machine's locale setting. Fixes: f3f431a71272 ("Reproducible U-Boot build support, using SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH") Signed-off-by: Chris Packham --- Hopefully this will suit everyone.

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [PATCH] Makefile: Use correct timezone for U_BOOT_TZ

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Chris Packham wrote: > When building with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH the timezone is in UTC. When > building normally the timezone is taken from the build machine's locale > setting. > > Fixes: f3f431a71272 ("Reproducible U-Boot build support, using > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH") >

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [PATCH] Makefile: Use correct timezone for U_BOOT_TZ

(note I had some patman config that erroneously included extra people on the original Cc list, I've now dropped them) On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > Le vendredi 31 juillet 2015 à 22:04 +1200, Chris Packham a écrit : >> When building with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH the timezone

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [PATCH] Makefile: Use correct timezone for U_BOOT_TZ

Le vendredi 31 juillet 2015 à 22:04 +1200, Chris Packham a écrit : > When building with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH the timezone is in UTC. When > building normally the timezone is taken from the build machine's locale > setting. Thanks a lot for introducing this, I thought it might disturb a few people. >

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Reproducibility vs signatures

Ben Hutchings: > 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 > a