On 2016-01-24 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Sat 2016-01-23 16:52:09 -0500, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
>> While working on the “reproducible builds” effort [1], we have noticed
>> that libgcrypt20 could not be built reproducibly.
>> The attached patch adds support for SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to set the valu
Ximin, Dhole:
Thanks for correct my misconception about the state of the issue and the
discouragement of the patch sent by Dhole.
Thanks to Dhole too for update the wiki page of the issue.
Greetings,
JMPC
> On 16-02-11 20:13:25, Ximin Luo wrote:
> > Juan Picca:
> > > From the issue page
> > > (
On 16-02-11 20:13:25, Ximin Luo wrote:
> Juan Picca:
> > From the issue page
> > (https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros)
> > i see that the usage of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH was
> > discouraged in the gcc-patches mailing list thread.
> >
>
> Hi Juan, I think that was not dis
Hi,
and 3 new armhf builder jobs created…!
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-
Juan Picca:
> From the issue page
> (https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros)
> i see that the usage of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH was
> discouraged in the gcc-patches mailing list thread.
>
Hi Juan, I think that was not discouragement, it was just neutral discussion
about the
Hi guys, long time no see
I want to ask about the status of TimestampsFromCPPMacros
issue.
>From the issue page
(https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros)
i see that the usage of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH was
discouraged in the gcc-patches mailing list thread.
If no advancement
Hi Vagrant,
On Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Upgraded cbxi4a to 3.8GB of ram!
yay!
(I'll now distribute 8 builders jobs to those with ~4gb, 6 builders for 2gb
and 3 for 1gb… for now, we'll see how that goes… (before we had 6 builders for
2gb and 3 for 1gb))
> And a
On 2016-02-01, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> cbxi4a-armhf-rb.debian.net:
> Cubox-i4x4, imx6 quad-core, 2GB ram, ~60GB SATA SSD
Upgraded cbxi4a to 3.8GB of ram!
And added another node to join it:
cbxi4b-armhf-rb.debian.net:
Cubox-i4x4, imx6 quad-core, 3.8GB ram, ~60GB SATA SSD
ssh port: 2240
ssh fin
Source: ckeditor
Version: 4.5.6+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
ckeditor fails to build from source in unstable/amd64:
Source: sisu-guice
Version: 3.2.6-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
sisu-guice fails to build from source in unstable/amd64:
Source: etcd
Version: 2.2.3+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
etcd fails to build from source in unstable/amd64:
[..]
Source: gnome-mines
Version: 1:3.18.2-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
gnome-mines fails to build from source in unstable/amd64
12 matches
Mail list logo
