Holger Levsen:
> On Montag, 30. März 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
> > These seem like FTBFS that should be reported, so the package
> > maintainers patch out usage of the macros, especially as the plan was
> > to enable warnings for them by default eventually.
> yes, they should be reported. thats why they are listed on 
> https://reproducible.debian.net/issues/unstable/timestamps_from_cpp_macros_issue.html
> There is *no* need to list them on tracker.d.o, in fact, I consider this 
> *harmful*: once you start showing false negatives, people are less likely to 
> believe the results, thus people start to mentally ignore them.
> Please dont make this happen.
> > How can we show FTBFS that do need to be reported but not show FTBFS
> > that don't need to be reported?
> Please only show reliable results from reproducible.d.n on tracker.d.o - 
> ftbfs 
> bugs are not reliable. Please exclude them. 
> (What's needed to exclude them would be to include logic from 
> reproducible.debian.net which I dont consider sensible.)

As dpkg-buildpackage now outputs `-Wdate-time` instead of
`-Werror=date-time` in the reproducible toolchain, I believe the above
to be less an issue.

Lunar                                .''`. 
lu...@debian.org                    : :Ⓐ  :  # apt-get install anarchism
                                    `. `'` 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to