On 09/01/2015 12:36 AM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Chris Lamb wrote:
>>> As a proof of concept, I've fixed "pppconfig" the way I think this
>>> kind of bugs should be fixed: By not running "po/update.sh" each and
>>> every time.
>> https://gist.github.com/be5b243cfcaaa27819f0 is the diff for anyone
>> interested
> Well, that includes some cleanup I also did because the package was
> orphaned (like removing "source and diff are obsolete" warning message
> which is 15 years old at least).
> The size of "not running po/update.sh" is really a single line removal.
>>> Would be possible to drop the forked gettext and try to fix this in
>>> the affected packages?
>> Seems reasonable, especially as it's only ~40 packages. Would you guess
>> most of them are fixable under debian/ or require upstream patches?
> I would bet that most of them are fixable by changing debian/* only
> (but I really don't know).

As I understand it, the changes in debian/* would be to disable the call
to po/update.sh. But then there's also changes needed inside po/ because
the maintainer would need to run update.sh (which would modify files in
po/) before packaging right? I don't find it clear if the update.sh
should be run by the Debian maintainer or by upstream.

> It's funny that the current gettext fork in alioth did not seem to
> help about 8 of them:
> https://reproducible.debian.net/issues/unstable/lc_messages_randomness_issue.html
> (There are 12 unreproducible, but only 8 suffer currently from this issue)

The reason why 8 of them are not reproducible even with the patched
gettext is because the calls to xgettext in those packages don't happen
under dh, which is one of the current patched toolchains that export
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. Since that variable is not exported, xgettext embeds
the current date. But that happens to other packages as well with other
issues (where the toolchain has already been patched to honour


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to