Hi Roberto and others,
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 09:39:25PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Steps to reproduce:
>
> 1. configure backports repo
> 2. install git-buildpackage: apt-get install git-buildpackage
> 3. install sbuild: apt-get install -t bookworm-backports sbuild
> 4. create an appropr
hi,
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 10:56:41AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Sure, I'd like to assume at the time this got implemented :), and also
> as part of every dpkg release:
> https://git.dpkg.org/cgit/dpkg/dpkg.git/tree/build-aux/gen-release#n147
oh nice!
> > I guess someone would need to act
Hi!
On Tue, 2025-05-13 at 12:58:30 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 02:24:38PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > We have had reproducible source packages (barring OpenPGP signatures in
> > the .dsc files) since pretty much the same time dpkg-deb gained support
>
> have you actu
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 02:24:38PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> We have had reproducible source packages (barring OpenPGP signatures in
> the .dsc files) since pretty much the same time dpkg-deb gained support
have you actually tried that?
> > why do you think they are important?
> For QA alone
Hi!
On Tue, 2025-05-13 at 11:10:25 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 12:02:54PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Those can also
> > affect source package generation, so I still think it does make sense
> > that they generate a .buildinfo file. I also think reproducible source
>
hi Guillem,
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 12:02:54PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > can't we change this requirement? .buildinfo files for _source.changes
> > don't make sense, so we shouldn't create nor distribute them.
> (I think we have discussed this in the past. :)
indeed! :)
> If someone uses
Hi!
On Tue, 2025-05-13 at 06:33:49 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 02:28:57AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > With the .buildinfo support introduction, one current requirement is
> > that any .changes file includes at least one .buildinfo file (so
> > there's currently no fil
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 02:28:57AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> With the .buildinfo support introduction, one current requirement is
> that any .changes file includes at least one .buildinfo file (so
> there's currently no filtering based on build type, nor any counting
> to not break on potential
Hi!
On Mon, 2025-05-12 at 10:38:08 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 dpkg-dev
> Control: found -1 1.21.22
>
> On Sat, 10 May 2025, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> > > 6. Observe the presence of the buildinfo in the resulting source.changes:
> > >grep buildinfo ../
Control: reassign -1 dpkg-dev
Control: found -1 1.21.22
On Sat, 10 May 2025, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> > 6. Observe the presence of the buildinfo in the resulting source.changes:
> >grep buildinfo ../*_source.changes
>
> This is something that dpkg-genchanges does. Sbuild runs
Hi Roberto (2025.05.09_21:39:25_-0400)
6. Observe the presence of the buildinfo in the resulting source.changes:
grep buildinfo ../*_source.changes
The issue that triggered this
(https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/debusine/-/issues/884) was the
presense of a *binay* buildinfo (not named
Hi Roberto,
Quoting Roberto C. Sanchez (2025-05-10 03:39:25)
> I reproduced this on a fresh bookworm install.
thank you for your very detailed bug report. It contains everything I wanted to
know and I appreciate that you performed the steps from a fresh install. I can
verify your findings from wi
Package: sbuild
Version: 0.88.4~bpo12+2
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I reproduced this on a fresh bookworm install.
Steps to reproduce:
1. configure backports repo
2. install git-buildpackage: apt-get install git-buildpackage
3. install sbuild: apt-get instal
13 matches
Mail list logo
