Hi again,

Axel Beckert wrote:
> could someone more python-savvy than me have a look at this claim that
> our SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH example for Python on
> https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsProposal#Examples
> is wrong.
> 
> The claim is here:
> https://github.com/mkdocs/mkdocs/issues/938#issuecomment-219574932

And the fix from the mkdocs folks for mkdocs is here:
https://github.com/waylan/mkdocs/commit/8b006bd7fda55e47e29412896c511c7244398f82

                Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

_______________________________________________
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

Reply via email to