On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 02:01:19PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > I'll also propose another option, lets call it D:
not that it matters much (see below) but I think i had proposed this
on irc earlier :)
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 02:39:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Gosh, this is all very complicated.
yes, it is. so thanks for writing this up.
> It seems anomalous that we (i) schedule binNMUs on each architecture
> separately but (ii) they must all be aligned. This leads to suggest
> another option
> E. Always schedule rebuilds on all arches, so they all
> have identical bdates.
> (this may be quite hard or a bad idea for other reasons).
I *believe* this is not done (always) because not all architectures always have
enough capacity...
> F. Abolish binNMUs and just do no-change source-only uploads.
> tag2upload might make this much easier...
(yes but we don't have that yet.)
> Anyway,
yes :)
> I think that means Chris's option D would work. I have to say this
> addition of +1 second feels like a bodge to me, although I can't
> immediately think of a way it would go wrong other than merely
> confusing humans. (If we go with this option we should maybe pick a
> larger value of 1 - aren't there some filesystems with >1s timestamp
> granularity? 2 might be better.)
and now I wonder again why S_D_E plus (offset multiplied by something)
is better than what we have or had, which is a new d/changelog entries
for binNMUs causing an entirely new S_D_E for those binNMUs?!?
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Ich hab nix gegen Fremde, aber diese Fremden sind nicht von hier. (Asterix)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
