p...@passoire.fr: > Hi Ximin. > > Le 06/04/2016 13:17, Ximin Luo a écrit : >> The most preferable route would be to persuade upstream to accept patch (2). >> If they don't do that, then it's still worth doing option (2) over (1) > > Thanks for your answer. I will go the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH way. > > How can I handle debian/upstream duality? I mean if I send a patch > proposal upstream, maybe it would be better to also open a bug in > debian, so that if someone works on reproducibility he won't do the work > independently from me? > Or I can send a patch to the debian package maintainer, that he can pass > upstream: this way I won't bypass him? >
Best to open both - i.e. open the upstream one first, then open a debian one with the pseudo-headers "forwarded -1 <upstream bug url>" and "tags -1 + upstream". You might need to prepend "Control: " depending on how you're submitting the bug report, see https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control for more details. X -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
