On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:51:39PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> 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 let wanna-build generate that timestamp itself (from
> > > the
> > > time it processes the "nmu" command) and then pass it to sbuild via a
> > > not-yet-existing --binNMU-timestamp option?
> > Wanna-build has a "State-Change" date:
> > wouter@wuiet:~$ wanna-build -A powerpc --info nbd
> > nbd:
> > Package : nbd
> > Version : 1:3.14-4
> > Builder : buildd_powerpc-porpora
> > State : Installed
> > Section : admin
> > Priority : source
> > Installed-Version : 1:3.14-4
> > Previous-State : Uploaded
> > State-Change : 2016-11-21 23:13:18.744533
> > Build-time : 9255
> > CalculatedPri : 50
> > component : main
> > Distribution : sid
> > Notes : out-of-date
> > Old-Failed : -------------------- 1:2.9.23-1 --------------------
> > fails test suite
> > State-Days : 9
> > State-Time : 835808
> > Success-build-time : 366
> > Why not use that?
> I don't know wanna-build but this timestamp seems to be architecture specific
> (I see "powerpc" in your paste above)?
> Instead, sbuild should be called with the same input timestamp on all
> architectures when an nmu is to be built.
Hmm, yes. That doesn't fit then.
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12