Control: reassign -1 buildd.debian.org
Hi!
On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 17:43:58 +0200, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
> On Friday, 30 March 2018 15:02:31 CEST Chris Lamb wrote:
> > [ https://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2017/05/msg00011.html ]
>
> On Friday, 30 March 2018 20:15:33 CEST Sven Joachim
On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 15:22:30 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 04:05:39PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Any news regarding this proposal from Ansgar? We were biten now
> > several times already by this (e.g. php update, curl via
> > security.d.o).
>
> Guilem, what's
Hi!
[ Just a very quick reply, will go over the other mails during the week. ]
On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 13:58:00 +, Ximin Luo wrote:
> Also the man page for dpkg-buildpackage is out-of-date:
>
>6. Unless a source-only build has been requested, it runs the
> buildinfo hook and calls
Hi!
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 06:08:25 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 17:23:00 +, Ximin Luo wrote:
> > Control: tags + patch
>
> > I've done an initial implementation here:
> >
> > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/devscripts.g
On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 11:39:28 -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2017-02-19, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> * .buildinfo files are not generated when creating source-only uploads
> >
> > Fixed. Now always generated.
>
> On a related note, is it currently possible to c
Hi!
On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 19:04:53 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've noticed several things with the
> current .buildinfo format, even after the cleanup pre-merge, that
> I'd like to fix or change so that we can hopefully reach Format 1.0.
Ok, let's s
ached patch on top of your branch HEAD
is also needed.
Thanks,
Guillem
From 8ccb601c3e3f1cb16db923b8464e8a73b4cf03df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:04:27 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Improve .buildinfo support
---
s
in the .buildinfo file, their checksums will not
match as they have been changed.
I've prepared a patch for dscverify to test the new dpkg, but debsign
is still pending. Patch attached, please review.
Thanks,
Guillem
From 1579878c73e248f89d5619d893dab450fc6344fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover
Hi!
On Sun, 2016-11-13 at 14:21:45 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Also see:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/BuildinfoFiles#Semantics
>
> I've heard many upstream developers who were initially very much against
> purging the timestamp when the build was done from their build
Hi!
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've noticed several things with the
current .buildinfo format, even after the cleanup pre-merge, that
I'd like to fix or change so that we can hopefully reach Format 1.0.
Some of the issues, that bother me:
* .buildinfo files are not currently signed
I just
Hi!
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 11:16:09 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sven Joachim writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> > I'm afraid I don't really have a good suggestion. Using current date
> > would work but obviously break reproducibility, and any other date seems
> > arbitrary.
>
> I
Hi!
On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 22:41:09 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I see the python2.7 source package does this:
>
> LAST_CHANGE := $(shell dpkg-parsechangelog -S Date)
> export BUILD_DATE := $(shell LC_ALL=C date -u +'%b %e %Y' -d
> '$(LAST_CHANGE)')
> export BUILD_TIME := $(shell LC_ALL=C date
Hi!
On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 11:06:32 +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 08:57:01AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > As part of the Reproducible Builds effort [0], we would like to enable
> > a new default build flag from the reproducible/fixdebugpath feature
> > area in order to
Hi!
On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 12:17:32 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> could you please comment briefly on
> your take on this bug and it's status?
I've had my qualms about the need for this patch, but in any
case the provided patch has not been correct now for a while as
I pointed out on IRC some
Hi!
On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 10:34:08 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 12:26:13 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > b.) common build timestamp for all files created at a later time
>
> Pending release of new upstream tar. And the patch reworked to stop
> trying to d
On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 12:54:04 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:34:08AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 12:26:13 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > f.) add support for .buildinfo files
> >
> > I need to finish commenting on
Hi!
On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 12:26:13 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Looking at this I notice we have some changes without bugs and some
> changes involving several bugs, still I think it would be good to
> discuss them as uploaded.
>
> IOW: dear dpkg maintainers, what are your comments regarding
On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 23:10:13 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Package: diffoscope
> Version: 51
> Severity: wishlist
> It seems diffoscope does not fully support the deb(5) format as
> specified in the man page. At least control.tar.xz members, and
> probably neither contro
Package: diffoscope
Version: 51
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
It seems diffoscope does not fully support the deb(5) format as
specified in the man page. At least control.tar.xz members, and
probably neither control.tar nor data.tar.
It would be nice if these could be supported, as I might try to
get
Hi!
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 10:32:08 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 24/02/16 22:16, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > >- Possible lack of buildd resources to do the rebuild. Notably, due
> > > to Multi-Arch:same we would generally
[ Just stumbled on this on the mail archive. ]
Hi!
On Tue, 2016-02-16 at 08:42:07 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Steven Chamberlain:
> > On linux, a symlink can only have permissions 0777 (lrwxrwxrwx)
> >
> > But on at least kfreebsd (maybe hurd?) there is no such limitation, and
> > permissions
Hi!
On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 14:43:08 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > > How about naming the field “Environment-Variables”?
> >
> > Hmm, or Environment, or Build-Environment, which reminds me that I've
> > found the usage of Build-Environmen
t;
> The proposal was “the string should consist only of alphanumeric
> characters and hyphens”. Guillem made the following comment while
> reviewing the patches for dpkg:
>
> Guillem Jover:
> > Can we just simply use the package name rules instead? It also avoids
> > poten
On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 15:18:30 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > Lunar:
> > > I think the proposed patch is missing a field to record some environment
> > > variables that can affect the build process. Right now, I'm thinking of
> > > DEB_BUILD_OP
Hi!
On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 19:36:25 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > I've some pending changes I'll be committing to master or a separate
> > branch, that I'd like to be tested on the reproducible setup (ideally
> > against the already generated and pre-
Hi!
On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 16:07:54 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > > One of the main change is that `.buildinfo` should now be named with an
> > > arbitrary identifier. By default this defaults to $HOSTNAME-$TIMESTAMP
> > > but can be set to an arbit
Hi!
On Tue, 2016-01-05 at 14:32:51 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files
> Control: tag -1 + patch
> The attached patch will enable dpkg-buildpackage to create .buildinfo
> files as specified on the Debian wiki [1]. They have two main
Hi!
On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 19:36:25 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > I've some pending changes I'll be committing to master or a separate
> > branch, that I'd like to be tested on the reproducible setup (ideally
> > against the already generated and pre-
Hi!
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 08:58:47 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Jérémy Bobbio:
> > The attached patch will enable dpkg-buildpackage to create .buildinfo
> > files as specified on the Debian wiki [1]. They have two main purposes:
> >
> > * recording information about the system environment used
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 08:42:48 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
On 2015-07-31, Guillem Jover wrote:
Right, I noticed this quite some time ago, but forgot to bring it up.
W/o having checked anything, it might be that whoever prepared the
release perhaps forgot to «autoreconf -f -i
Hi!
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 16:49:13 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
so yesterday I tried to build
http://reproducible.alioth.debian.org/debian/dpkg_1.18.1.0~reproducible5.dsc
with pbuilder on sid/armhf and that failed _exactly_ like
Hi!
On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 09:31:05 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
Some people suggested that we should record a checksum of the `.deb`
installed as a way to unambiguously referring to a specific package.
In principle the tuple pkgname-version-arch should be unique per
archive, otherwise
[ reproducible-builds people, please see below. ]
Hi!
On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 10:02:27 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:40:16PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
$ make -jN -f debian/rules build
and
$ DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel=N debian/rules build
I prefer
33 matches
Mail list logo
