On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:05:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
> Personally I think a Linux kernel tarball, without accompanying git
> history, is a GPL violation.
>...
Why would the git *history* matter for GPL compliance?
You can push from a shallow clone.
> Ian.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:09:56AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> That already exists (see the dpkg-source manual page), but IIRC isn't
> allowed in the archive because the ftp-masters do not want to have to
> analyse the whole history of a git repository for DFSG issues.
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 a
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 at 17:02:53 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The ChangeLog file in the "source" tarball of the hello package is
> generated from the git metadata.
>
> You are saying it is a bug that .git is not shipped in the source
> tarball of GNU hello?
I don't think it is, but I also can't a
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:05:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> How exciting. So the official tarball of GNU hello is not the
> preferred form for modification!
ironically I could say "welcome to 2016"… ;)
> Personally I think a Linux kernel tarball, without accompanying git
> history, is a GPL v
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps"):
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:48:56PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> >...
> > * Source for generated files in the tarball: should be in both git
> > and tarball, but sometimes mistakenly omitted from ta
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:09:56AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 17:26 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > At that point the best solution would be an alternative source
> > package format that is based on git.
>
> That already exists (see the dpkg-source manual page), but IIRC isn'
On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 17:26 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> At that point the best solution would be an alternative source
> package format that is based on git.
That already exists (see the dpkg-source manual page), but IIRC isn't
allowed in the archive because the ftp-masters do not want to have to
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:58:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps [and 1 more
> messages]"):
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:42:26AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> ...
> > > If it does "sufficiently diff
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps [and 1 more
messages]"):
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:42:26AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
> > If it does "sufficiently different" things, but still succeeds, when
> > the timestamps are permited the
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:42:26AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps"):
> > Be prepared to see a lot of such issues when you touch random files.
>
> I'm certainly expecting to see lots of issues.
>
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:48:56PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
>...
> * Source for generated files in the tarball: should be in both git and
> tarball, but sometimes mistakenly omitted from tarballs (e.g. configure.ac,
> m4/foo.m4, build-aux/git-version-gen). Leaving these out of the tarball i
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 04:02:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> How much effort is it to do an archive rebuild nowadays ? How studly
> a computer (or computers?) do I need.
A few outdated data points:
* a single cheap Odroid-U2 arm SoC needs 51 days
* a beefy crapload-cores, everything-in-RAM mach
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps"):
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Could someone point me at some tools, or volunteer to help, or something ?
>
> Check out the wiki page about this:
> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.d
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 at 00:38:22 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The "hello" package still builds after you autoreconf the package,
> but the program no longer knows what version it is (automake tries to
> run build-aux/git-version-gen which is not in the source tarball).
I think that's an upstream bu
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 04:02:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
> Most of our packages use `make' or something like it. make relies on
> timestamps to decide what to rebuild. It seems that sometimes our
> source packages contain combinations of timestamps (and perhaps stamp
> files) which, in p
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Could someone point me at some tools, or volunteer to help, or something ?
Check out the wiki page about this:
https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/ArchiveTesting
> I ask because have found a new way to break packages :-).
Whee!
> What d
How much effort is it to do an archive rebuild nowadays ? How studly
a computer (or computers?) do I need. Could someone point me at some
tools, or volunteer to help, or something ?
I ask because have found a new way to break packages :-).
Most of our packages use `make' or something like it.
17 matches
Mail list logo
