Hi Guillem,

(sorry for the late reply…)

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:20:44AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > could you please comment briefly on
> > your take on this bug and it's status?
> I've had my qualms about the need for this patch, but in any
> case the provided patch has not been correct now for a while as
> I pointed out on IRC some time ago. Which is why Mattia reworked
> it temporarily so that the dpkg in the reproducible repo works and
> does not mess with the data.tar files.
> As I also mentioned on IRC, I'm planning on coming up with something
> for this for the next upload. And left it out as it's certainly not
> in the critical path to reproducible binaries, as the control member
> has a more controlled environment.

thanks for this information and your work on this. (I agree with your
assessment its not that critical…)

> > It's in the BTS since 13 months without a maintainer comment.
> So it's certainly true that the bug report has had no comment for
> that long, and I should have probably updated it for the benefit
> of others, but I was actually quite surprised by this mail from you
> given that I've been keeping at least Mattia and others on the IRC
> channel informed of the progress and bugs status, which I had the
> impression were getting relayed to the reproducible IRC channel,
> and which he confirms he has been doing all along… so claiming no
> maintainer comment seems a bit unfair TBH.


what I ment indeed where "maintainer comments in the BTS" as comments on
IRC (or mailinglists or RL) get lost/forgotten/cannot be found… 

which is precisely what had happened here: I was really lost at the
status of this bug, the patch was in our repo since a long time yet I
had no idea whether you considered it ready, useless or in need of some
work. (I'm not on the #debian-dpkg IRC channel and while I do read
dpkg's bugs I wouldn't say that I follow it's development closely.)

so long story short: I ment comments in the BTS & I'm sorry to have
given the impression I think you don't care about dpkg's bugs. That's
definitly the opposite of what I think! :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to