Hi Guillem,
> I tried building that package with the fix (from git master) enabled and
> disabled and I see the buildinfo w/o and w/ the duped entry in the field.
> So this confirms the fix works. :)
Excellent news. Thanks for checking so rigorously, at the very least this
will save a potential
Hi!
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 10:47:07 +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> > If you notice this is still a problem, please do file a bug!
>
> Indeed I can still reproduce it:
>
>
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/buildinfo/unstable/amd64/redis_3.2.5-1_amd64.buildinfo
>
Guillem Jover wrote:
> If you notice this is still a problem, please do file a bug!
Indeed I can still reproduce it:
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/buildinfo/unstable/amd64/redis_3.2.5-1_amd64.buildinfo
https://gist.github.com/lamby/214906fbfa8814acc8b920b800977216/raw
Note
Hi!
On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 11:01:28 +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Control: tag 138409 pending
>
> Firstly, this is really great to see; thanks to you (and everyone else)
> for your work on this.
No problem, it took probably longer than it should have though. :/
> This is just a quick message to
Guillem,
> Control: tag 138409 pending
Firstly, this is really great to see; thanks to you (and everyone else)
for your work on this.
This is just a quick message to query whether the applied patch fixes
the "duplicate Installed-Build-Depends" issue that I raised a week or
so ago?
If not, am
Lunar,
also:
< josch> personally i'd be happy with Lunar's suggestion: Installed-Build-
Depends
< josch> i think the natural understanding of that term implies the
transitivity as well as that it's not the closure that is meant
* h01ger likes Installed-Build-Depends too
< h01ger> | [12:14] <
Hi,
Quoting Jérémy Bobbio (2016-02-04 12:23:05)
> We have to educate them about .buildinfo file and what the various fields
> mean. We have to aim at field names that are as unambigious as possible to
> avoid laying traps on users.
>
> For the particular case of
Guillem Jover:
> On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 14:43:08 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > Guillem Jover:
> > > > How about naming the field “Environment-Variables”?
> > >
> > > Hmm, or Environment, or Build-Environment, which reminds me that I've
> > > found the usage of Build-Environment (as the list of
Hi Josch,
On Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> maybe we can merge Lunar's original suggestion Installed-Build-Depends (a
> name which is missing the transitive/recursive-ness) with the new
> suggestion and make it:
>
> Installed-Transitive-Build-Depends
>
> This way it
no thanks for totally dismissing what I said…
and making funny signs about the crap I said. very funny.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Holger Levsen:
> I know that *you* have grasped the concept of transitive build depends very
> well, but I'm pretty sure that 97% of the DD population have no idea what
> transitive build depends are, especially compared to build-depends or
> alternative build-depends. And even 70% were too
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I asked for more suggestions on #debian-dpkg, and Johannes Schauer
> suggested Transitive-Build-Depends, which is something I had in mind
> too (that or «Recursive-»), but kind of softly discarded in trying to
> have a consistently
Hi,
Quoting Guillem Jover (2016-02-04 09:44:13)
> On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 14:43:08 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > and “Installed-Build-Depends” for the list of packages?
>
> I asked for more suggestions on #debian-dpkg, and Johannes Schauer
> suggested Transitive-Build-Depends, which is something
Hi!
On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 14:43:08 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > > How about naming the field “Environment-Variables”?
> >
> > Hmm, or Environment, or Build-Environment, which reminds me that I've
> > found the usage of Build-Environment (as the list of transitively
> >
On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 09:44:13 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> (BTW I also realized that I don't think we are including «Essential:yes»
> packages in that set, and we should.)
Actually, disregard this, they are already included! Sorry for the
noise.
Thanks,
Guillem
Hi!
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 16:34:40 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> We were discussions the restrictions on buildinfo identifiers:
>
> fweb_1.62-12+b2_brahms-20120530T114812Z.buildinfo
> ^^^
> this part
>
> The proposal was “the
Hi!
We were discussions the restrictions on buildinfo identifiers:
fweb_1.62-12+b2_brahms-20120530T114812Z.buildinfo
^^^
this part
The proposal was “the string should consist only of alphanumeric
characters and hyphens”.
On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 15:18:30 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > Lunar:
> > > I think the proposed patch is missing a field to record some environment
> > > variables that can affect the build process. Right now, I'm thinking of
> > > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS and
Guillem Jover:
> Oh and had completely forgotten, could you please also add a new
> deb-buildinfo(5) man page describing the format of the file? I really
> want all file formats supported by dpkg to be documented here for
> external parties to refer to.
I think the manpage is the only remaining
Guillem Jover:
> > How about naming the field “Environment-Variables”?
>
> Hmm, or Environment, or Build-Environment, which reminds me that I've
> found the usage of Build-Environment (as the list of transitively
> required packages) slightly confusing, precisely because the first
> thing that
Guillem Jover:
> Lunar:
> > I think the proposed patch is missing a field to record some environment
> > variables that can affect the build process. Right now, I'm thinking of
> > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS and DEB_flag_{SET,STRIP,APPEND,PREPEND} (from
> > dpkg-buildflags). Maybe others? Build profiles?
>
Guillem Jover:
> > One of the main change is that `.buildinfo` should now be named with an
> > arbitrary identifier. By default this defaults to $HOSTNAME-$TIMESTAMP
> > but can be set to an arbitrary value by the `--buildinfo-identifier`
> > command line flag.
>
> Hmmm, leaking the hostname
Hi!
On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 16:07:54 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > > One of the main change is that `.buildinfo` should now be named with an
> > > arbitrary identifier. By default this defaults to $HOSTNAME-$TIMESTAMP
> > > but can be set to an arbitrary value by the
Hi!
On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 19:36:25 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > I've some pending changes I'll be committing to master or a separate
> > branch, that I'd like to be tested on the reproducible setup (ideally
> > against the already generated and pre-existing reproducible
Hi!
On Tue, 2016-01-05 at 14:32:51 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files
> Control: tag -1 + patch
> The attached patch will enable dpkg-buildpackage to create .buildinfo
> files as specified on the Debian wiki [1]. They have two main
Hi!
zOn Thu, 2016-01-28 at 19:01:59 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 28. Januar 2016, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Hmmm, leaking the hostname seems slightly privacy-concerning? If the
> > information therein is not relevant I'd rather use something like an
> > UUID (although that would
Hi!
On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 19:36:25 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > I've some pending changes I'll be committing to master or a separate
> > branch, that I'd like to be tested on the reproducible setup (ideally
> > against the already generated and pre-existing reproducible
Guillem Jover:
> I've some pending changes I'll be committing to master or a separate
> branch, that I'd like to be tested on the reproducible setup (ideally
> against the already generated and pre-existing reproducible binaries),
> if that's possible, I'll ask about that when those land, I just
Hi!
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 08:58:47 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Jérémy Bobbio:
> > The attached patch will enable dpkg-buildpackage to create .buildinfo
> > files as specified on the Debian wiki [1]. They have two main purposes:
> >
> > * recording information about the system environment used
Hi,
On Freitag, 29. Januar 2016, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > (I'd be in favor of naming the first accepted buildinfo
> > file of the archive just "" so that it's predictable…
> I'm not sure how we'd use a sequential number in a distributed manner
> starting with 0s though? :9
we can't :)
Hi Guillem,
just quickly commenting on two sub topics…
On Donnerstag, 28. Januar 2016, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > One of the main change is that `.buildinfo` should now be named with an
> > arbitrary identifier. By default this defaults to $HOSTNAME-$TIMESTAMP
> > but can be set to an arbitrary
+many thanks for your thorough review! :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Jérémy Bobbio:
> The attached patch will enable dpkg-buildpackage to create .buildinfo
> files as specified on the Debian wiki [1]. They have two main purposes:
>
> * recording information about the system environment used during a
>particular build—versions of the build dependencies
Control: retitle -1 dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files
Control: tag -1 + patch
Hi!
The attached patch will enable dpkg-buildpackage to create .buildinfo
files as specified on the Debian wiki [1]. They have two main purposes:
* recording information about the system environment
34 matches
Mail list logo
