[Reproducible-builds] Bug#817248: diffoscope 51 not uploaded to pypi

package: diffoscope version: 51 severity: minor x-debbugs-cc: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" Hi, thanks for making us aware of this issue! On Mittwoch, 9. März 2016, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > FYI: I checked why I missed diffscope 49, 50, and 51. > > It seems to

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [Reproducible] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility

Hi, On Mittwoch, 9. März 2016, Julien Cristau wrote: > Most source packages that build both arch:all and arch-dependent > packages will be affected, I believe. Enough that for all practical > purposes, an arch:all binNMU means making things uninstallable, so is a > big no-no. IOW: if a source

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [Reproducible] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility

Hi, 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 need to do the rebuild on all > > architectures. > FWIW, that

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [Reproducible] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility

Hi, On Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2016, Niels Thykier wrote: > The topic of rebuilding all of Stretch to make it self-contained (IRT to > reproducibility) was brought up on the release IRC meeting today (topic > originally proposed in [1]). The highlights: > * To my knowledge, only people from the

Re: [Reproducible-builds] openSUSE Conference

Hi Christian, On Freitag, 26. Februar 2016, Christian Boltz wrote: > (I'm not subscribed here - please CC me in your replies.) done :) > Is someone interested to give a talk about Reproducible Builds at the > openSUSE Conference (June 22-26 in Nürnberg, Germany)? > > We had some interest in

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Number of CPUs for armhf builds

Hi, On Montag, 7. März 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Sure, but I suspect there are *some* builds that will never succeed in > under 12 hours with a single CPU core (on the current armhf build > hardware, anyways). I doubt there are many of those, who will manage with dual-cores in 12h,

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Heads-up! (was: [dpkg] 07/07: Document 1.18.5.0~reproducible1)

Hi Lunar, thanks for rebasing our changes on the latest master branch! On Freitag, 4. März 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > This versions implement changes discussed in #138409. One is that we are > now capturing some environment variables in .buildinfo files. In the > case of

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Raspi 3 suitable for arm64?

Hi Axel, On Sonntag, 6. März 2016, Axel Beckert wrote: > > I think we'd need 10-12 of such boards for a start, not sure if we still > > have Debian funds to buy those (but I almost think so… Vagrant?) - > > providing we would find someone interested+able to host these. Would you > > (Axel) be

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Raspi 3 suitable for arm64?

Hi, as a general comment to the Debian ARM people: thanks a lot for your insightful comments, even though they smashed the idea of cheap arm64 Debian builders for now! Much appreciated feedback! On Sonntag, 6. März 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > That said, I'm not sure how much CPU/board

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Number of CPUs for armhf builds

Hi, On Sonntag, 6. März 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > I'm also pondering to change it to use CPUs+1 for the first builds and > > CPUs for the 2nd ones. > That would be interesting, although I was thinking we might want to do a > fewer number of CPUs on the first build, to make it more likely

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Raspi 3 suitable for arm64? (was: new armhf node (Odroid-XU4))

Hi Axel, On Sonntag, 6. März 2016, Axel Beckert wrote: > I now wonder if a bunch of Raspberry Pi 3 -- since they have 64-bit > CPUs (IIRC an Allwinner A53T) -- would make us able to check > reproducible-builds for Debian arm64, too. as far as I know, yes. Though I would want to use some other

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf nodes (Firefly-4gb, BeagleBoard-X15)

Hi Vagrant, On Sonntag, 6. März 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Ah, looking at: > > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/reproducible.html > > env DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="parallel=XXX" > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="parallel=YYY" XXX for amd64: 18 or 17 YYY for amd64: > 17 or 18 (!=

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf nodes (Firefly-4gb, BeagleBoard-X15)

Hi Vagrant, On Donnerstag, 3. März 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > This new board recognizes all 4GB of ram, yay! > > ff4a-armhf-rb.debian.net: > Firefly-RK3288, quad-core rockchip 3288 (A12/A17?), 4GB ram yay indeed & added to jenkins! > Well, got eSATA working finally, so decided to run

[Reproducible-builds] Subgraph OS pkg sets

Hi, I've just added package sets for Subgraph OS, which is based on Debian stretch, see https://subgraph.com/sgos/ for more info. https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/testing/amd64/pkg_set_subgraph_OS.html and https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/testing/amd64/pkg_set_subgraph_OS_build-

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#815171: Bug#815171: Bug#815171: Bug#815171: Bug#815171: diffoscope: build time tests fail on armhf

Dear Lunar, On Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > I've removed myself from Uploaders. "wow" :( I'm sorry to have contributed to this. Motivation is a strange thing… I hope you've just decided to scale down / change your involvement in *maintaining* things in a similar spirit

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#815844: Bug#815844: diffoscope won't build without python-magic from PyPi

control: severity -1 minor Hi, downgrading this bugs severity as it doesnt affect Debian as Lunar explained. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#815171: Bug#815171: Bug#815171: Bug#815171: diffoscope: build time tests fail on armhf

Hi, On Montag, 22. Februar 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > Because it's just a test that is brittle. It doesn't affect normal use > of the installed package and does only prevent a successful build one > times out of ten. only counting version 47+48, it caused 5 build failures out of 5 build

Re: [Reproducible-builds] package uploaded to our repo

Hi, On Samstag, 20. Februar 2016, Reiner Herrmann wrote: > strip-nondeterminism_0.015-1.0~reproducible1.dsc has just been uploaded to shouldnt this go to sid instead? cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#815171: Bug#815171: diffoscope: build time tests fail on armhf

Hi Lunar, On Sonntag, 21. Februar 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > Control: severity -1 normal I dont see why this should be a normal bug, ftbfs are serious by default. Also, as this bug is also present in version 48, it wont affect testing migration, in case you downgraded the severity because

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#815171: diffoscope: build time tests fail on armhf

Source: diffoscope Version: 48 Severity: serious Justification: fails to build from source, but built fine in the past User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs Hi, diffoscope fails to build from source in unstable/armhf but has successfully built in the past: [..]

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Projects and mentors wanted for our participation in upcoming outreach programmes

Hi, On Freitag, 19. Februar 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > In the case of reprotest, I would be happy to help someone write it. But > I don't want to become its primary maintainer after the summer—there's > already to many things that I feel I should attend to. well, then (if someone writes it

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Projects and mentors wanted for our participation in upcoming outreach programmes

Hi, On Donnerstag, 18. Februar 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > Also, I've mostly copied last years template so far, so I think we should > > update it a bit. > I just did that, tried to capture the different things that people can > do and ideas that were submitted to the list. cool, much nicer

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Projects and mentors wanted for our participation in upcoming outreach programmes

Hi, On Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2016, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > I do want to reorganize my life once again starting from March (new > semester at uni), if I manage to get through the next week, so I'll be > available to co-mentor and help :) yay & good luck! > > what other ideas do you have? > I'd

Re: [Reproducible-builds] repro-test (was: Re: Projects and mentors wanted for our participation in upcoming outreach programmes)

Hi, On Donnerstag, 18. Februar 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote: > - I also totally was reading this as re-protest initially and wondered why > I would want to protest again, so I concur with Esa's observation and > conclusion > > - on a second thought, maybe this was intentional :D bingo! :-)

Re: [Reproducible-builds] freedombox pkg set (Re: Bug#814840: tor: Please make build reproducable

Hi Petter, On Dienstag, 16. Februar 2016, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Thank you very much! I'll pass the information to the freedombox > mailing list. thanks! you can pass on more now… > > I've just noticed that "tor", which triggered this, is not part of this > > package set… :) > Yeah, it

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Projects and mentors wanted for our participation in upcoming outreach programmes

Hi, On Sonntag, 14. Februar 2016, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > Some of you have been waiting for it, and it's finally time: we are looking > for mentors and project ideas for Debian's next participation in outreach > programmes, from May to August 2016. many thanks for doing this once again,

[Reproducible-builds] freedombox pkg set (Re: Bug#814840: tor: Please make build reproducable

Hi Petter, On Montag, 15. Februar 2016, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > The tor package is used in the FreedomBox project, and one long term > goal for me there is to make sure the FreedomBox system is completely > made from reproducable packages. do you have a list of all packages used by the

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#814696: python-netaddr: ftbfs: `/usr/share/i18n/charmaps': No such file or directory

Hi Vincent, On Sonntag, 14. Februar 2016, Vincent Bernat wrote: > I am not able to reproduce this failure with pbuilder. In the log file, > I see that the "locales" package is not getting installed while it is a > build dependency. locales-all provides locales and is what our pbuilder uses. So

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#814696: python-netaddr: ftbfs: `/usr/share/i18n/charmaps': No such file or directory

Source: python-netaddr Version: 0.7.18-1 Severity: serious Justification: fails to build from source, but built fine in the past User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Dear Maintainer, python-netaddr fails to

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#814692: arduino: ftbfs on armhf

Source: arduino Version: 2:1.0.5+dfsg2 Severity: important Tags: sid stretch User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Dear Maintainer, arduino fails to build on armhf, on both stretch and unstable as

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf node (Cubox-i4x4), part 2

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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf node (Cubox-i4x4), part 2

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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] please don't build on archs that packages don't declare support for

Hi, On Dienstag, 9. Februar 2016, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > I think bin/reproducible_build.sh makes a too broad assumption, that > packages producing arch:all parts can build on "any" arch. indeed > dpkg-buildpackage proceeds, I think, because there are arch-indep parts > that 'might' be

Re: [Reproducible-builds] please don't build on archs that packages don't declare support for

Hi Michael, thanks for reaching out to us and reporting this…! On Samstag, 6. Februar 2016, Michael R. Crusoe wrote: > I think you all are the bee's knees. However, some of the packages I > maintain aren't compatible with 32 bit architectures, like armhf, and are > explicitly marked as such.

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files

Hi Josch, On Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > (AFAIK transitive build-depends are all possible build depends, > no, that would be the build dependency closure ;) and > > so if a package build depends on python2 || python3 both python versions > > will be part of the

Re: [Reproducible-builds] licencing reproducible/presentations.git

Hi, I forgot to say… On Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016, Holger Levsen wrote: > but in any case the question is: are you fine to licence your work under > Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License or (at the choice of > the user of the works) under GNU Free Documentation License

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf node (Cubox-i4x4)

Hi Vagrant, On Dienstag, 2. Februar 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Here's another board, in theory with more ram, but in practice... > cbxi4a-armhf-rb.debian.net: > ssh port: 2239 thanks for setting it up, but: jenkins@jenkins:~$ ssh -v -p 2239 cbxi4a-armhf-rb.debian.net OpenSSH_6.7p1

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf node (Cubox-i4x4)

Hi Vagrant, On Dienstag, 2. Februar 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Here's another board, in theory with more ram, but in practice... > cbxi4a-armhf-rb.debian.net: added it now. builder jobs coming soon! :) > Technically, this has 4GB of ram, but it's not reconizing all 4GB. Will > work on

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files

Hi, On Sonntag, 31. Januar 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > A breakdown of the change since the last submitted patch is available > for easier review: > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/reproducible/dpkg.git/log/?h=pu/buildinfo should we upload a package based on this branch to our repo? cheers,

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf node (Cubox-i4x4)

Hi, On Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2016, Holger Levsen wrote: > added it now. builder jobs coming soon! :) added 4 new armhf builder jobs too, but the network connection is still flaky… cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message p

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files

Hi Guillem, just quickly commenting on two sub topics… On Donnerstag, 28. Januar 2016, Guillem Jover wrote: > > 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 arbitrary

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files

+many thanks for your thorough review! :-) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf node (OrangePi Plus2)

Hi Vagrant, On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > opi2b-armhf-rb.debian.net: > OrangePi Plus2, Allwinner H3 (cortex-a7) quad-core, 2GB ram, ~60GB USB2 > SATA SSD ssh port: 2238 thanks, added to the jenkins setup. Once pbuilder and schroots jobs have been run I'll add builder

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#806911: Bug#806911: Bug#806911: Second build on failures

Hi Aurelien, On Donnerstag, 24. Dezember 2015, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Yes, it's exactly that. The glibc was configured with a minimum kernel > set to 3.2. This allows to use the new features provided by the kernel > without any compatibility code to emulate them. For that the libc first > looks

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf nodes (Firefly/OrangePi Plus2)

Hi Vagrant, On Dienstag, 5. Januar 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Two more quad-core systems ready to join the fun! awesome, thanks a lot! I'm setting them up right now, pbuilder/schroot/maintenance jobs are basically there and then, once the schroots/pbuilder base.tgz's are set up (and

[Reproducible-builds] .buildinfo files and Re: new armhf node (Raspberry PI 2B)

Hi, happy new year! :-) For those who didnt notice on irc yesterday: ftp.debian.org now accepts uploads with .buildinfo files now - though these are thrown away immediatly… so some progress at least \o/ On Mittwoch, 30. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Got a second Raspberry PI 2 set

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [PATCH] Show ordering on notes pages.

Hi Chris, On Mittwoch, 30. Dezember 2015, Chris Lamb wrote: > commit 19c6a60dcdfcd0e0986b802df4477add22fbf069 > Author: Chris Lamb > Show ordering on notes pages. thanks, applied & deployed! cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf node (Firefly)

Hi Vagrant, Thanks for setting up odxu4b, odxu4c and ff2a, they have now been fully configured and included in the jenkins build setup, such that I also could add six new armhf builder jobs! cheers from 32c3, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#808809: diffoscope: tests will fail in future

source: diffoscope version: 44 severity: important Hi, when building diffoscope in the future, the tests fail like this: === FAILURES === _ test_listing _ differences

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Adding a 'c' build to test with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck ?

Hi, sorry for coming back to this old thread now… end of the year cleaning of old threads :) On Mittwoch, 23. September 2015, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > My take on this: I want to wait until we can rebuild packages taken from > directly the archive. We can easily run these later rebuilds with >

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Juniper ScreenOS backdoor

Hi Steven, On Montag, 21. Dezember 2015, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > One of the reproducible builds talk slides, showed a diff of OpenSSH > before and after some off-by-one vulnerability was fixed. > > Here's a real-world malicious backdoor in Juniper ScreenOS's sshd: >

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#806911: Second build on failures

Hi Aurelien, On Montag, 21. Dezember 2015, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Also note that we have re-enabled 2.6.32 support on amd64 and i386, so > you should not need any patch to get these architectures working. nice! but this is not available yet in sid+testing yet, or is it? (or maybe rather: what

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Patch V2 for build nodes pools

Hi Vagrant, On Montag, 21. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > put some 4cores in one pool, and 2cores in another? > It could be done any number of ways, I merely added it to show how it > would work with the code I was proposing. well, I don't think we should develop an example here,

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Second build on failures

Hi, cc:ing the bug and thus leaving some more context… On Montag, 21. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2015-12-21, Holger Levsen wrote: > >> For now, relying on the fact that there are different actual kernels on > >> various builds (4.x vs. 3.x) will hop

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Patch V2 for build nodes pools

Hi Vagrant, On Samstag, 19. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > I didn't spend any time really figuring out which nodes to add to the > example 16th build job, so that might need some adjusting. put some 4cores in one pool, and 2cores in another? > - Split load estimating into it's own

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Second build on failures

Hi, On Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Filed against libc-bin: > https://bugs.debian.org/806911 > Aurelian Jarno filed a patch upstream to support using the uname26 > personality: > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-12/msg00028.html ok, cool, thanks! > So

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#808464: suddenly being asked for interactive keyboard configuration

package: debconf,keyboard-configuration severity: serious x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Hi, first of all: I'm at lost where this really comes from, as this happened the first time on December 16th (and since then I saw and aborted it daily) and neither debconf nor

[Reproducible-builds] cause found…

reassign 808464 qa.debian.org close 808464 thanks Hi, the cause was (is) actually a bug in jenkins.d.n script (the env variable DEBCONF_FRONTEND is reset by using sudo) but it only became visible now when diffoscope 43 started to pull in python-guestfs, which then lead to keyboard-

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Patch for build nodes pools

Hi Vagrant, On Samstag, 19. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Patch below! No idea if it works, given that I don't have a spare > jenkins.debian.net or build network to test on, but hopefully it > demonstrates the idea, and is mostly there. as discussed on irc: thanks for your work on

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#807997: Bug#807997: diffoscope: CbfsFile checks make diffoscope extra slow

Hi Mike, out of curiosity: did you have cbfstool installed? (Minor side point: if you have, I think the severity is inflated, as cbfstool ain't in Debian. And probably even if you haven't. Anyway. Severities are not my point here. :) Just last night I learned that for properly comparing

[Reproducible-builds] simple next step for getting .buildinfo files into Debian

Hi ftp folks, while we still appreciate your comments on this proposal as last week described in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763822 I'd like to make a intermediate very simple proposal, so that reproducible builds in Debian get one step forward: - modify dak, so that it

Re: [Reproducible-builds] How to react on "the second build failed, even though the first build was successful" ?

Hi, most often packages fail to do the 2nd build because they cannot deal with UTF-8 locales, which we have enabled in the 2nd but not the 1st build. See https://reproducible.debian.net/reproducible.html#variation to learn how 1st+2nd build differ. cheers, Holger signature.asc

Re: [Reproducible-builds] How to react on "the second build failed, even though the first build was successful" ?

Hi Thomas, On Montag, 14. Dezember 2015, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > The warning is still on display at > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisoburn > No new attempt of building is shown on > https://reproducible.debian.net/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/libisoburn.html I've triggered a test of libisoburn

Re: [Reproducible-builds] build paths and debug info for generated C objects

Hi, (for those not watching IRC…) On Donnerstag, 10. Dezember 2015, Niels Thykier wrote: > Given no one has voiced their concerns, I think you should go ahead and > push it upstream. :) this has happened now: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01168.html cheers, Holger

Re: [Reproducible-builds] blacklist armhf: vxl qtbase-opensource-src

On Freitag, 4. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Since I this is the first time I've emailed a blacklist request for > armhf to the list, I figured I'd at least document a reason, given that > nearly all of the armhf blacklisted packages are for the same reason. :) :) signature.asc

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Second build on failures

Hi, thanks Vagrant for catching and reporting this…! On Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > I suspect this is also an issue with amd64, though it shows up when > trying to install build-deps: > https://reproducible.debian.net/unstable/amd64/index_last_24h.html yeah :/ it's

Re: [Reproducible-builds] blacklist armhf: vxl qtbase-opensource-src

Hi Vagrant, On Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Please (add to the growing) blacklist on armhf: vxl qtbase-opensource-src done > Both hit the 12 hour timeout at least once, and armhf is slow enough, > and hasn't neared 100% enough to keep building these... no need to

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#806891: Bug#806891: Multi-file HTML output

Hi Joachim, On Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2015, Joachim Breitner wrote: > in the branch "html-dir" in the main repository, you will find the > following feature: > Multi-file HTML output /me likes, thanks for implementing this! > In particular, the table presenting a diff that is larger

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [Reproducible-commits] [notes] 01/01: In addition to scsh-0.6, we should not be trying to build these packages on amd64:

Hi Santiago, On Donnerstag, 26. November 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > Yesterday night, in another email, Holger told me that perhaps those > packages that I added and then removed should be added again. > > I started to write this reply but I think it is better to discuss it > here as I think it

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [Reproducible-commits] [notes] 01/01: In addition to scsh-0.6, we should not be trying to build these packages on amd64:

Hi Santiago, On Mittwoch, 25. November 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > I was making package lists to check for "dpkg-buildpackage -A", > for amd64 and for i386. saw those bugs, nice work! > Of those, cmucl FTBFS (just reported, without even using -A), so I > went to reproducible.debian.net to

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [Reproducible-commits] [notes] 01/01: In addition to scsh-0.6, we should not be trying to build these packages on amd64:

Hi Santiago, On Mittwoch, 25. November 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > In addition to scsh-0.6, we should not be trying to build these > packages on amd64: > > cmucl > fenix > gnumach why? (eg bug number) - and should we blacklist them? cheers, Holger signature.asc

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [Reproducible-commits] [notes] 01/01: In addition to scsh-0.6, we should not be trying to build these packages on amd64:

Hi Santiago, On Mittwoch, 25. November 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > > why? (eg bug number) > Because their Architecture field in the Sources.gz file does not include > amd64. ah, ok, then please don't mention those in notes.git as they automatically show up on

[Reproducible-builds] building for and in the future now

Hi, profitbricks-build5-amd64 is now running 400 days in the future now, thus half the amd64 Debian builds are now done with a year and a month and more than a day time difference, also the day of the week should be different as well. we'll see how this goes. cheers, Holger

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf node (Wandboard Dual)

Hi, for the record, this one is building packages now too. Plus, arm64 machines are coming too! \o/ cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list

Re: [Reproducible-builds] new armhf node (Odroid-XU4)

Hi Vagrant, thanks a lot for this new node. I've set it up and included in the machinery now, see https://jenkins.debian.net/munin/debian.net/odxu4-armhf-rb.debian.net and https://jenkins.debian.net/munin/debian.net/odxu4-armhf-rb.debian.net/jenkins_reproducible_builds.html I've "only" added

[Reproducible-builds] notes of the meeting between some members of the release + reproducible builds teams

Hi, at the Mini-DebConf in Cambridge Chris Lamb and myself gave a talk titled "beyond reproducible builds", about the steps needed to happen once we achieved being able to do reproducible builds of the Debian archive. The full slides are available at

[Reproducible-builds] Fwd: Re: OCaml and reproducible builds

Hi, FYI: cheers, Holger -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: OCaml and reproducible builds Date: Samstag, 7. November 2015 From: Hannes Holger, On 11/07/2015 00:45, Holger Levsen wrote: > http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=7037 Gabriel wrote a patch (h

Re: [Reproducible-builds] [PATCH] kbuild: Add support for SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable

Hi, On Montag, 26. Oktober 2015, Ben Hutchings wrote: > It's aimed at all build tools. For examples, see: > > https://codesearch.debian.net/results/%5C%24SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH%20-path%3Adeb > ian%2F/page_0 > https://codesearch.debian.net/results/getenv%5C%28%22SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH%22% >

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Recent issues with faketime in debian/rules during reproducible-builds builds

Hi, most everything here has been answered so far, so just a small note from me. On Montag, 19. Oktober 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > I don't think that > faketime is a lot special about this. Most of the time a simple > "touch" and options like tar's --owner and --group are enough to > achieve

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Depends is non-deterministically python3.5 or python3

Hi Santiago, On Samstag, 17. Oktober 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > Ok, Chris said, and I agree, that in general we should not submit bugs > without patches. +1 :) > What should we do with this bug, then? Should we leave it closed even > if it's apparently not fixed?: no, we should also not

Re: [Reproducible-builds] On expiring packages and issues

Hi, On Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > Hi. Do we expire issues (not packages) when no package currently have them? https://reproducible.debian.net/index_issues.html -> scroll down to the bottom. > (I would prefer to keep them). it depends, i'd say. they also stay in git

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#801333: retitle

retitle 801333 diffoscope: UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xfa in position 1: ordinal not in range(128) thanks Hi, someone just reported the same problem on irc: bnewbold@repro:~/diffoscope$ py.test-3 tests/test_main.py -vv

Re: [Reproducible-builds] dpkg has lost some of its superpowers

Hi Niko, On Montag, 12. Oktober 2015, Niko Tyni wrote: > The 5eacc4dbec35525468ad195e6b026a857dc12220 commit message (in > dpkg pu/reproducible_builds) talks about dpkg-buildpackage setting > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, but the code uses DEB_BUILD_TIMESTAMP. Ah! > So if I understand this correctly,

Re: [Reproducible-builds] dpkg has lost some of its superpowers

Hi Santiago, On Montag, 12. Oktober 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > Done cool, thanks! > but I have had to do it without the git stuff because it seems > to be broken at this moment: [...] > warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout. no, it works as documented. check out

Re: [Reproducible-builds] timestamps_in_directories

Hi, On Montag, 12. Oktober 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > Indeed. Just replace "disorderfs" by "different filesystem ordering" > and we still have a likely reason for the differences. on possible source for this variation is the kernel, Ben said on irc that it's possible that tmpfs from 3.16 and

Re: [Reproducible-builds] timestamps_in_directories

Hi Nico, On Sonntag, 11. Oktober 2015, Niko Tyni wrote: > It's indeed an unfortunate interaction of dh_installdocs and disorderfs > when installing directory hierarchies. we don't use disorderfs since weeks: commit ba68946a5af979eb5e319ddacae23cefd92e0fe1 Author: Holger Levsen <hol

Re: [Reproducible-builds] python-requirements-detector: FTBFS: AttributeError: 'Call' object has no attribute 'starargs'

Hi Daniel, On Freitag, 9. Oktober 2015, Daniel Stender wrote: > ... cf. https://bugs.debian.org/800788 thanks, added to https://reproducible.debian.net/python3-astroid and https://reproducible.debian.net/python-requirements-detector (via 3031f13 in git.debian.org/git/reproducible/notes.git,

[Reproducible-builds] on manual rescheduling uploaded packages (Re: [Qa-jenkins-dev] Different versions

Hi, cc:ing the regular reproducible list, as others also fail for this misconception… On Donnerstag, 8. Oktober 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > I've rescheduled w3c-markup-validator a few minutes ago. [...] > I see that it has built 1.3+dfsg-2 again, not -3. rescheduling is for _rescheduling_

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Build environment changes between build1 and build2

Hi, On Donnerstag, 8. Oktober 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > If we are unable to reproduce the environment to begin with, i.e. if > we don't even give the package the opportunity to show that it's > reproducible, then it is not the package's fault, and I see no reason > to mark it as

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Build environment changes between build1 and build2

On Donnerstag, 8. Oktober 2015, Holger Levsen wrote: > btw, the build results today are also still broken: seems I've fixed this by now. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Reproducible-builds mailing l

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Build environment changes between build1 and build2

Hi, On Donnerstag, 8. Oktober 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > I've seen several cases where a package is considered not reproducible > just because the build environment changed between build1 and build2. this should not happen… end of the story. If it happens, its a bug in the CI. and today it

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Build environment changes between build1 and build2

Hi, btw, the build results today are also still broken: context: https://reproducible.debian.net/unstable/amd64/sagasu [16:23] < h01ger> | something looks very fishy here [16:24] < h01ger> | but i dont get what [16:25] < h01ger> | the diffoscope diff of the unreproducible builds

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails

Hi Emmanuel, On Montag, 5. Oktober 2015, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Thank you very much for the changes. Let's see how it goes, but I > suspect the volume of notifications will be much better and the need for > individual subscriptions less critical. we'll see. you are still subscribed to 1000

[Reproducible-builds] adding a new PTS keyword (Re: Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails

Hi, forwarding this question to -qa@ as it's more likely to get an answer there... On Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > I think there is value in receiving these notifications, they provide > > timely feedback about the status of our packages. > > > > Maybe we can setup a

[Reproducible-builds] exception found: ftbfs in testing, reproducible in sid (Re: Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails)

Hi, On Samstag, 3. Oktober 2015, Holger Levsen wrote: > If this doesnt happen it's almost certainly a bug in our test framework, > but not a reproducibility issue in the package. And if the package ftbfs > in testing, this is very sad, but IMO not appropriate to send a > "re

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails

Hi, On Dienstag, 29. September 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > Are we really spamming people with this? > (spam = unsolicited bulk email) no, we dont. please read https://reproducible.debian.net/index_notify.html cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails

Hi, thanks for explaining, Emmanuel! On Dienstag, 29. September 2015, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Actually I tend to prefer the reports in unstable. The reports in > testing are often duplicates of issues already known in unstable, and > sometimes they are already fixed in unstable when they are

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails

Hi, On Dienstag, 29. September 2015, Markus Koschany wrote: > I would like to take the opportunity to raise the following concern. I > support the reproducible builds effort but I think the periodic e-mails > to pkg-java are often not useful enough at the moment. There are far too > many

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#800007: Wanted: reproducible anarchism!

package: anarchism version: 14.0-3 severity: wishlist User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: locale X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org Hi, anarchism is affected by #770011 and it would be nice to trivially workaround it so that we finally have

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#799901: Bug#799901: [diffoscope] TypeError: 'differences' must contains Difference objects'

Hi, thanks for the bug report! On Mittwoch, 23. September 2015, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > Seen on rb.d.n (publican/4.3.2-1 on unstable/amd64): https://jenkins.debian.net/job/reproducible_builder_amd64_9/2681/ has been preserved now, in case you want to see the full log. cheers, Holger

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >