On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:50:19PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 05:32:26 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > The more I think about this, the more I'm getting the impression this
> > does not sound like a good idea. As mentioned initially, I think it
> > would be better to possib
Hi!
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 12:35:56 -0700, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:31:16AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 17:51:22 -0700, Niko Tyni wrote:
>
> > > I can see that this could cause timestamp skew in packages if the Debian
> > > packaging is older than fil
Hi,
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Niko Tyni wrote:
> In the scope of just the source package, it seems possible for dpkg-source
> to remember the latest timestamp it has extracted and notice if that's
> newer than the debian/changelog timestamp.
dpkg-source delegates most of the extraction to "tar" so it
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:31:16AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 17:51:22 -0700, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > I can see that this could cause timestamp skew in packages if the Debian
> > packaging is older than files in the upstream tarball. This seems like
> > it's always a (minor)
Hi!
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 17:51:22 -0700, Niko Tyni wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Severity: wishlist
> User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> Usertags: toolchain, timestamps
>
> Some build systems [1] embed the time stamp of source files into the
> binary package. For the benefit of r
Package: dpkg-dev
Severity: wishlist
User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: toolchain, timestamps
Some build systems [1] embed the time stamp of source files into the
binary package. For the benefit of reproducible builds [2], it would
be nice if these time stamps would not re
6 matches
Mail list logo
