Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 05:40:44PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > The only correct "solution" I see while keeping the current mess, would > be to declare binNMU versions a globally shared resource across all > architectures (in and out of archive!), trigger them globally for all > architectures (or

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[ Had this half-drafted, but had not found the time to finish it up until now. ] Hi! On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 13:52:18 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: > misleading timestamps in binnmus"): > > Instead

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:51:39PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2016-12-01 16:24:16) > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the > > > "nmu" command of

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2016-12-01 16:24:16) > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the > > "nmu" command of wanna-build to also add an option that allows setting a > > timestamp, or even

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, (Sorry for piping in so late to the party here) On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the > "nmu" command of wanna-build to also add an option that allows setting a > timestamp, or even let

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, Quoting Holger Levsen (2016-11-14 18:25:34) > To me it seems a binNMU should change SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, as debian/changelog > gets modified by changelog.$arch, so it's actually a different source which > is being build. debian/changelog doesn't get modified by changelog.$arch. The latter is

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Can I ask you the converse question: what same-timestamp proposal do > > you think is best and why ? > > I found Guillem's suggestion the most sensible and as far as I understand the > matter also the easiest to implement: > > Quoting Guillem

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, thanks for having this discussion! On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-11-14 17:33:55) > > Can I ask you the converse question: what same-timestamp proposal do > > you think is best and why ? > > I found Guillem's suggestion the most

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-11-14 17:33:55) > Unless the timestamp is of the binnmu request, plumbing to try to get > the same timestamp will be difficult. > > I'm not a fan of the idea of merely adding 1 second per binnmu. That > would mean that making a second binnmu correctly would involve

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus"): > I want to understand why passing the same timestamp to all > architectures is an inferior solution to your proposal. This is a sensible question. Thanks for helpin

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-11-14 14:52:18) >I don't think it is possible to make the binnmu timestamp the same >across architectures. For example, a package might be rebuilt only >on some architectures. I don't think we want to change that. In >particular, even if we were

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus"): > Instead, file conflicts might be created from files with > content that depends on SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. tl;dr: Analysis. Revised proposal: Introduce BUILD_DA

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, Quoting Ximin Luo (2016-11-10 18:13:00) > Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:59:48AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > One solution would be to increase SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH by 1 second for every > > > binNMU to a package. > > > > > > Any other ideas? > > set

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

(resending again to the correct addresses; I could never get used to debbugs CC behaviour.) Ximin Luo: > Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used >> for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure >> they are identical

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used > for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure > they are identical on all architectures (or at least to try to do so). > > If you change the date in the binNMU entry,

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:59:48AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > One solution would be to increase SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH by 1 second for every > binNMU to a package. > > Any other ideas? set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to the creation time of that changelog.$arch entry? -- cheers, Holger

Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"): > Ian Jackson (2016-11-09): > > What version of sbuild do buildds run ? Ie, supposing that this is > > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ? Or do > > we need to update

Bug#843773: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2016-11-10 07:04:55) > On 10/11/16 10:00, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used > > for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure > > they are identical on all architectures (or

Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On 10/11/16 10:00, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 10:04 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2016-11-08 22:30 -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: >>> It seems that sbuild indeed re-uses the timestamp from the last >>> debian/changelog entry in the binNMU changelog entry. >> >> This has

Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 10:04 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2016-11-08 22:30 -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > It seems that sbuild indeed re-uses the timestamp from the last > > debian/changelog entry in the binNMU changelog entry. > > This has been done in an early attempt to make binNMUs

Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Ian Jackson (2016-11-09): > What version of sbuild do buildds run ? Ie, supposing that this is > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ? Or do > we need to update jessie, or what ? sbuild on buildds uses a specific version of sbuild, for

Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Thanks to everyone who has provided information. I have summarised it in #843773, against sbuild. What version of sbuild do buildds run ? Ie, supposing that this is fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ? Or do we need to update jessie, or what ? Ian. -- Ian Jackson