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 helping to explore all the issues. TBH I'm not completely sure that it is, but: 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 looking in the archive to see what the previous binnmu timestamp was. It would also mean that the timestamps would be quite blatant lies: for example, there would be files claiming to have been generated with compiler X at time T, where compiler X did not exist at time T. If the timestamp is of the binnmu request then I guess it will all work, but the extra plumbing seems unnecessary. > I also don't see why it's a problem that a package might only be > rebuilt on some architectures. If only some architectures of a > M-A:same package get a binNMU, then they are not co-installable > anyways. I think you're right that this isn't a problem. Can I ask you the converse question: what same-timestamp proposal do you think is best and why ? Regards, Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.