Your message dated Sat, 24 Aug 2013 01:15:02 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: Bug#719854: dpkg: Please expand all substvars in dpkg-genchanges has caused the Debian Bug report #719854, regarding dpkg: Please expand all substvars in dpkg-genchanges to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 719854: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=719854 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: dpkg Version: 1.16.10 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Hi! We are currently a few folks interested in enabling byte for byte reproducible builds of Debian packages [1]. In order to achieve this, we need a way to record the environment that was used to do the initial build. We currently think that the right place to do so is the `.changes` file. We can currently easily add new fields there by using the `XC-` construct in `debian/control`. Unfortunately, `dpkg-genchanges` does currently not expand all substvars, limiting our abilities to experiment. Can you consider applying the following patch that make `dpkg-genchanges` behave just like `dpkg-gencontrol`? diff --git a/scripts/dpkg-genchanges.pl b/scripts/dpkg-genchanges.pl index 0b004c7..13cedd6 100755 --- a/scripts/dpkg-genchanges.pl +++ b/scripts/dpkg-genchanges.pl @@ -516,4 +516,5 @@ for my $f (keys %remove) { delete $fields->{$f}; } -$fields->output(\*STDOUT); # Note: no substitution of variables +$fields->apply_substvars($substvars); +$fields->output(\*STDOUT); Thanks! [1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds -- Jérémy Bobbio .''`. [email protected] : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism `. `'` `-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Hi! On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 12:07:23 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > Guillem Jover: > > Expanding substvars “might” possibly only make sense for unknown fields, > > the rest of the known fields should be deterministic from the source > > package itself. And there's multiple fields that must not use them > > at all, this includes the Changes field for example, or we'd get > > expansions on changelog entries that mention substvars. > > I had not thought of the issue related to changelog entries. I think it > would be worth documenting it, maybe close to the “Note: no substitution > of variables” comment. I've done so now locally. > > So in principle I'll be tagging this wontfix, and probably closing after > > a bit, given that the original request can be already fulfilled by other > > (nicer) means. > > Fair enough. Ok closing then. Thanks, Guillem
--- End Message ---
