De : Oswald Buddenhagen
À : Chris Lamb
Cc : 1101...@bugs.debian.org
Date : 31 mars 2025 14:03:11
Objet : Bug#1101741: isync: please make the build reproducible
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 12:04:37PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> we (RB) have found that using reference filestamps like
&
Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> yes, when you don't really understand the build system and basically
> hope for the best, then that's what you get.
I don't know why you keep suggesting that I don't understand the build
system or why this bug exists...
>>(Either way, the current call is missing the -
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 12:04:37PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
we (RB) have found that using reference filestamps like
this to seed dates tends to be both unpredictable and opaque.
yes, when you don't really understand the build system and basically
hope for the best, then that's what you get.
H
Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:17:15AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>>+-RELEASE_DATE=`date -r $0 +%F`
>>++RELEASE_DATE=m4_esyscmd([date --utc --date="@${SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH:-$(date
>>+%s)}" +%Y-%m-%d])
>>
> did you even try to understand what the upstream code does, and why it
>
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:17:15AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
+-RELEASE_DATE=`date -r $0 +%F`
++RELEASE_DATE=m4_esyscmd([date --utc --date="@${SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH:-$(date
+%s)}" +%Y-%m-%d])
did you even try to understand what the upstream code does, and why it
fails here?
the problem is that debi
Source: isync
Version: 1.5.1-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-b...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hi,
Whilst working on the Reproducible Builds effort [0], we noticed that
isync could not be built reproduci
6 matches
Mail list logo
