Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[Aurelien Jarno]

On 2016-11-10 11:33, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> (2016-11-09):
> > > What version of sbuild do buildds run ?  Ie, supposing that this is
> > > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ?  Or do
> > > we need to update jessie, or what ?
> > 
> > sbuild on buildds uses a specific version of sbuild, for reasons I'm not
> > going to summarize. The base version is close to what's in jessie (see the
> > first lines of any build log which has “sbuild (Debian sbuild) 0.65.2”).
> ...
> > Repository seems to live under:
> >   https://apt.buildd.debian.org/
> 
> Thanks.  When Johannes has decided exactly what the sbuild patch looks
> like in sid, I will take a look at the repo there and backport the
> change.  In what form should I supply mhy update ?  As an source+all

When it's done, just ping us with the commit number, we will backport it
in our branch and we will deploy it on the build daemons.

Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno  GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[Ian Jackson]

Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> (2016-11-09):
> > What version of sbuild do buildds run ?  Ie, supposing that this is
> > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ?  Or do
> > we need to update jessie, or what ?
> 
> sbuild on buildds uses a specific version of sbuild, for reasons I'm not
> going to summarize. The base version is close to what's in jessie (see the
> first lines of any build log which has “sbuild (Debian sbuild) 0.65.2”).
...
> Repository seems to live under:
>   https://apt.buildd.debian.org/

Thanks.  When Johannes has decided exactly what the sbuild patch looks
like in sid, I will take a look at the repo there and backport the
change.  In what form should I supply mhy update ?  As an source+all
upload of sbuild, as if I were being sponsored ?  As a
git-format-patch against a git import of what I find there (or a
dgitish git branch) ?

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[Cyril Brulebois]

Ian Jackson  (2016-11-09):
> What version of sbuild do buildds run ?  Ie, supposing that this is
> fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ?  Or do
> we need to update jessie, or what ?

sbuild on buildds uses a specific version of sbuild, for reasons I'm not
going to summarize. The base version is close to what's in jessie (see the
first lines of any build log which has “sbuild (Debian sbuild) 0.65.2”).

dsa-puppet.git has:
,---[ modules/debian-org/files/apt.preferences ]---
| …
| Package: sbuild
| Pin: release o=buildd.debian.org
| Pin-Priority: 500
| 
| Package: buildd
| Pin: release o=buildd.debian.org
| Pin-Priority: 500
| 
| Package: libsbuild-perl
| Pin: release o=buildd.debian.org
| Pin-Priority: 500
`---

Repository seems to live under:
  https://apt.buildd.debian.org/


KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[Ian Jackson]

Thanks to everyone who has provided information.  I have summarised
it in #843773, against sbuild.

What version of sbuild do buildds run ?  Ie, supposing that this is
fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ?  Or do
we need to update jessie, or what ?

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson    These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 11:16:09 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sven Joachim writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> > I'm afraid I don't really have a good suggestion.  Using current date
> > would work but obviously break reproducibility, and any other date seems
> > arbitrary.
> 
> I don't understand why using the current date would break
> reproducibility.
> 
> How does one reproduce a binnmu ?

As Mattia replied, by taking the data from the .buildinfo file:

> Clearly one needs a copy of the binnmu changelog stanza, because that
> (a) determines the version numbers of the generated .debs and (b) is
> actually included in the generated .debs.

man deb-buildinfo, Binary-Only-Changes field. :)

Thanks,
Guillem

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[Ian Jackson]

(CCing reproducible-builds again:)

Sven Joachim writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> I'm afraid I don't really have a good suggestion.  Using current date
> would work but obviously break reproducibility, and any other date seems
> arbitrary.

I don't understand why using the current date would break
reproducibility.

How does one reproduce a binnmu ?

Clearly one needs a copy of the binnmu changelog stanza, because that
(a) determines the version numbers of the generated .debs and (b) is
actually included in the generated .debs.

There is no updated .dsc in the archive, but the .deb one is trying to
reproduce contains the very changelog fragment in question.  So the
procedure has to be to combine the archive's .dsc with the .deb's
binnmu changelog stanza into a new source package.

This ought to be be reproducible regardless of what date is in the
.deb's binnmu changelog stanza.  So I think the .deb's binnmu
changelog stanza can be the date of the build (or the date of the
binnmu request, or whatever is convenient).

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:04:28AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't really have a good suggestion.  Using current date
> would work but obviously break reproducibility, and any other date seems
> arbitrary.

Why would that break reproducibility?  reproducible builds is about
reproducing a given build, in the case of a binNMU all the data neede
for that is registered in .buildinfo, including the date of the binNMU
and the full changelog entry of it.

Just using `date -R` is good, imho.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature