Control: tags 1052219 moreinfo
On 2023-09-19 Shengjing Zhu <z...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 2:57 PM Shengjing Zhu <z...@debian.org> wrote:
> > Package: binutils-mingw-w64-i686
> > Version: 2.41-4+11+nmu1
[...]
>> The NMU binutils-mingw-w64/11+nmu1 drops specify-timestamp.patch.
>> It causes libgcrypt20, gcc-mingw-w64 FTBFS.
>>
>> These packages use options like --insert-timestamp=1686475264,
>> which is not supported in upstream implementation.
>>
>> I find such option is mentioned on
>> https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsInPEBinaries
>> It looks like Debian specific behaviour.
> Asking libgcrypt20 and gcc-mingw-w64 to stop using this option makes more
> sense.
Looking at the changelog entry
* Drop specify-timestamp.patch, applied upstream in binutils 2.41
(Closes: #1042734)
changing the rdeps does not make any sense at all, since the
--insert-timestamp support is now supposed to be available upstream?
Since binutils-mingw-w64-i686 is reported to be 2.41 the support should
be available. So is binutils-mingw-w64-i686 actually 2.41 and if yes,
why does "applied upstream" not hold?
Nicholas (as NMUer) - can you explain?
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
