[Reproducible-builds] Bug#818856: Bug#818856: diffoscope: crashes on broken symlinks

[Paul Wise]

On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 00:42 +0530, Satyam Zode wrote:

> Thank you for reviewing patch. I have made all the changes you
> mentioned above. Please find an attachment :-)

This will works better but will still give a crash when both symlinks
are broken and point to a filename of the same length; because open()
throws an IOError exception when it tries to open a broken symlink.

In addition, I think we need a test for this issue written before
fixing the issue, here are some test cases I can think of:

one broken symlink, one file

one file, one broken symlink
one broken symlink, one dir

one dir, one broken symlink
one working symlink to a file, one broken symlink
one broken symlink, one working symlink to a file
one working symlink to a dir, one broken symlink
one broken symlink, one
working symlink to a dir
two broken symlinks pointing at the same
location
two broken symlinks of the same size but different locations
two broken symlinks of different sizes

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#820240: lua-ldoc: please honour SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH

[Alexis Bienvenüe]

Source: lua-ldoc
Version: 1.4.3-5
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch upstream
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: toolchain
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org

Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/stevedonovan/LDoc/pull/233

Dear Maintainer,

While working on the “reproducible builds” effort [1], we have noticed
that some packages (like lua-posix) use LDoc in their building process,
resulting in timestamps in documentation files that break reproducibility.

To solve this kind of issues, it would be nice to have LDoc support
the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable [2].

See the attached patch for a solution to this issue.

Regards,
Alexis Bienvenüe.

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds
[2] https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/

diff -Nru lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/changelog lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/changelog
--- lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/changelog	2015-11-01 10:17:35.0 +0100
+++ lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/changelog	2016-04-06 08:57:58.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+lua-ldoc (1.4.3-5.0~reproducible1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * Honour the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable
+
+ -- Alexis Bienvenüe   Wed, 06 Apr 2016 08:57:58 +0200
+
 lua-ldoc (1.4.3-5) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * Fix header used by lua-any adding 5.1 (Closes: #802248) 
diff -Nru lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/patches/0005-honour-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.patch lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/patches/0005-honour-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.patch
--- lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/patches/0005-honour-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.patch	1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/patches/0005-honour-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.patch	2016-04-06 08:57:21.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Description: Honour the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable
+ Honour the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable for even simpler
+ reproducible builds.
+ See https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
+Author: Alexis Bienvenüe 
+
+--- lua-ldoc-1.4.3.orig/ldoc.lua
 lua-ldoc-1.4.3/ldoc.lua
+@@ -783,10 +783,14 @@ ldoc.modules = module_list
+ ldoc.title = ldoc.title or args.title
+ ldoc.project = ldoc.project or args.project
+ ldoc.package = args.package:match '%a+' and args.package or nil
+-if args.date == 'system' then
+-ldoc.updatetime = os.date("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S")
++if os.getenv("SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH") == nil then
++   if args.date == 'system' then
++  ldoc.updatetime = os.date("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S")
++   else
++  ldoc.updatetime = args.date
++   end
+ else
+-ldoc.updatetime = args.date
++   ldoc.updatetime = os.date("!%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S",os.getenv("SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH"))
+ end
+ 
+ local html = require 'ldoc.html'
diff -Nru lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/patches/series lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/patches/series
--- lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/patches/series	2015-11-01 10:17:35.0 +0100
+++ lua-ldoc-1.4.3/debian/patches/series	2016-04-06 08:55:47.0 +0200
@@ -2,3 +2,4 @@
 0002-Remove-non-existing-one-1.md-from-tests-config.ld.patch
 0003-Fix-broken-template-missing-closing-bracket.patch
 0004-make-system-date-override-able-via-date.patch
+0005-honour-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.patch
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#818856: Bug#818856: diffoscope: crashes on broken symlinks

[Satyam Zode]

Hi Reiner!
I did some trivial changes. Please find an attached patch.
This patch closes #818856 and #796262.

Thanks!
Satyam Zode
From 85c062d32b84ed6d8fcf5a80f0d2a2fbb4e43e54 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Satyam Zode 
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:15:04 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] Fixed issue related to diffoscope symlinks crashing (Closes:
 #818856,#796262)

---
 diffoscope/comparators/binary.py | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/diffoscope/comparators/binary.py b/diffoscope/comparators/binary.py
index 9663214..2b61538 100644
--- a/diffoscope/comparators/binary.py
+++ b/diffoscope/comparators/binary.py
@@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ class File(object, metaclass=ABCMeta):
 def has_same_content_as(self, other):
 logger.debug('%s has_same_content %s', self, other)
 # try comparing small files directly first
-my_size = os.path.getsize(self.path)
-other_size = os.path.getsize(other.path)
+my_size = os.lstat(self.path).st_size
+other_size = os.lstat(other.path).st_size
 if my_size == other_size and my_size <= SMALL_FILE_THRESHOLD:
 if open(self.path, 'rb').read() == open(other.path, 'rb').read():
 return True
-- 
2.1.4

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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#818856: diffoscope: crashes on broken symlinks

[Satyam Zode]

Hi Reiner!

Thank you for reviewing patch. I have made all the changes you
mentioned above. Please find an attachment :-)

Cheers,
Satyam Zode
From 2e440a527e4689a6f4321695801b5cd04ff8642a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Satyam Zode 
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:31:42 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fixed issue related to diffoscope symlinks crashing

---
 diffoscope/comparators/binary.py | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/diffoscope/comparators/binary.py b/diffoscope/comparators/binary.py
index 9663214..2b61538 100644
--- a/diffoscope/comparators/binary.py
+++ b/diffoscope/comparators/binary.py
@@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ class File(object, metaclass=ABCMeta):
 def has_same_content_as(self, other):
 logger.debug('%s has_same_content %s', self, other)
 # try comparing small files directly first
-my_size = os.path.getsize(self.path)
-other_size = os.path.getsize(other.path)
+my_size = os.lstat(self.path).st_size
+other_size = os.lstat(other.path).st_size
 if my_size == other_size and my_size <= SMALL_FILE_THRESHOLD:
 if open(self.path, 'rb').read() == open(other.path, 'rb').read():
 return True
-- 
2.1.4

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

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#820194: nasm: please make the build reproducible (font ordering in documentation)

[rain1]

Source: nasm
Version: 2.11.08
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps fileordering hostname umask
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org

Hi!

While working on the “reproducible builds” effort [1], we have noticed
that nasm could not be built reproducibly.

The attached patch sorts keys from a hash table listing fonts to ensure 
a stable file order when creating the postscript and pdf documentation. 
Once applied, nasm can be built reproducibly in our

current experimental framework.* sort 'keys' for reproducibility.

Author: Raymond Nicholson 

---
The information above should follow the Patch Tagging Guidelines, please
checkout http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ to learn about the format. Here
are templates for supplementary fields that you might want to add:

Origin: , 
Bug: 
Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/
Bug-Ubuntu: https://launchpad.net/bugs/
Forwarded: 
Reviewed-By: 
Last-Update: 

--- nasm-2.11.08.orig/doc/genps.pl
+++ nasm-2.11.08/doc/genps.pl
@@ -968,18 +968,18 @@ print "%%Pages: $curpage\n";
 print "%%BoundingBox: 0 0 ", $psconf{pagewidth}, ' ', $psconf{pageheight}, "\n";
 print "%%Creator: (NASM psflow.pl)\n";
 print "%%DocumentData: Clean7Bit\n";
-print "%%DocumentFonts: ", join(' ', keys(%ps_all_fonts)), "\n";
-print "%%DocumentNeededFonts: ", join(' ', keys(%ps_all_fonts)), "\n";
+print "%%DocumentFonts: ", join(' ', sort keys(%ps_all_fonts)), "\n";
+print "%%DocumentNeededFonts: ", join(' ', sort keys(%ps_all_fonts)), "\n";
 print "%%Orientation: Portrait\n";
 print "%%PageOrder: Ascend\n";
 print "%%EndComments\n";
 print "%%BeginProlog\n";
 
 # Emit the configurables as PostScript tokens
-foreach $c ( keys(%psconf) ) {
+foreach $c ( sort keys(%psconf) ) {
 print "/$c ", $psconf{$c}, " def\n";
 }
-foreach $c ( keys(%psbool) ) {
+foreach $c ( sort keys(%psbool) ) {
 print "/$c ", ($psbool{$c}?'true':'false'), " def\n";
 }
 
@@ -1007,7 +1007,7 @@ print "  definefont pop\n";
 print "} def\n";
 
 # Emit fontset definitions
-foreach $font ( keys(%ps_all_fonts) ) {
+foreach $font ( sort keys(%ps_all_fonts) ) {
 print '/',$font,'-NASM /',$font," nasmenc\n";
 }
 
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

Re: [Reproducible-builds] lua-ldoc --date/SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH

[Ximin Luo]

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 " 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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] lua-ldoc --date/SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH

[pado]

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?

Thanks,
Alexis.


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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] lua-ldoc --date/SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH

[Ximin Luo]

Alexis Bienvenüe:
> Hi.
> 
> lua-ldoc's maintainer added a --date option that helps reproducible
> building. It is used by lua-penlight.
> However, awesome and lua-posix don't use it already.
> 
> What should you recommend?
> 1) patch awesome and lua-posix to use --date
> 2) patch lua-ldoc to add SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, on top of --date. This would
> be more reliable, but maybe lua-ldoc will get a little messy/muddled?
> 
> Thanks for your advice,
> Alexis Bienvenüe.
> 

Hi Alexis, 

One of the motivation factors for SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH was to have a 
*standardised* method for build tools to use - i.e. O(1) effort - instead of 
every tool inventing their own special command line flag that then every 
distribution each has to know about - i.e. O(m * n) effort.

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) because 
other tools in Debian at least can rely on this standard, instead of 
hard-coding lua-ldoc-specific logic everywhere.

Hope that makes sense,
Ximin

-- 
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

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#820183: cython: please make the build reproducible (timestamps)

[Alexis Bienvenüe]

Source: cython
Version: 0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org

Dear Maintainer,

While working on the “reproducible builds” effort [1], we have noticed
that 'cython' could not be built reproducibly.

The attached patch uses debian changelog last entry's year as copyright
year in the documentation (through SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH). Once applied,
cython can be built reproducibly in our current experimental framework.

Regards,
Alexis Bienvenüe.

 [1]: https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds


diff -Nru cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/changelog cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/changelog
--- cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/changelog	2016-02-19 16:13:06.0 +0100
+++ cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/changelog	2016-04-06 12:03:47.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+cython (0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8-1.0~reproducible1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * Fix copyright year in documentation for reproducible build.
+
+ -- Alexis Bienvenüe   Wed, 06 Apr 2016 12:03:47 +0200
+
 cython (0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * Fresh upstream post bugfix release snapshot
diff -Nru cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/patches/honour_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_copyright_year cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/patches/honour_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_copyright_year
--- cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/patches/honour_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_copyright_year	1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/patches/honour_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_copyright_year	2016-04-06 12:02:29.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Description: Honour SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH for copyright year
+ Uses SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable (if set) to
+ set the copyright year in documentation, to get reproducible build.
+Author: Alexis Bienvenüe 
+
+--- cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8.orig/docs/conf.py
 cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/docs/conf.py
+@@ -15,7 +15,10 @@ import sys, os, os.path, re
+ import itertools
+ import datetime
+ 
+-YEAR = datetime.date.today().strftime('%Y')
++if os.environ.has_key('SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH'):
++YEAR = datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(float(os.environ.get('SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH'))).strftime('%Y')
++else:
++YEAR = datetime.date.today().strftime('%Y')
+ 
+ # If extensions (or modules to document with autodoc) are in another directory,
+ # add these directories to sys.path here. If the directory is relative to the
diff -Nru cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/patches/series cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/patches/series
--- cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/patches/series	2016-02-19 16:13:06.0 +0100
+++ cython-0.23.4+git4-g7eed8d8/debian/patches/series	2016-04-06 12:00:46.0 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
 deb_disable_googleanalytics
 deb-reproducible.patch
+honour_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_copyright_year
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#820179: aodh: please make the build reproducible (timestamps)

[Alexis Bienvenüe]

Source: aodh
Version: 1.0.0-11
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org

Dear Maintainer,

While working on the “reproducible builds” effort [1], we have noticed
that 'aodh' could not be built reproducibly.

The attached patch removes build date from documentation. Once applied,
aodh can be built reproducibly in our current experimental framework.

Regards,
Alexis Bienvenüe.

 [1]: https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds

diff -Nru aodh-1.0.0/debian/changelog aodh-1.0.0/debian/changelog
--- aodh-1.0.0/debian/changelog	2015-11-21 14:22:21.0 +0100
+++ aodh-1.0.0/debian/changelog	2016-04-06 10:26:06.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+aodh (1.0.0-11.0~reproducible1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * Use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH for sample timestamps, to get reproducible
+build.
+
+ -- Alexis Bienvenüe   Wed, 06 Apr 2016 10:26:05 +0200
+
 aodh (1.0.0-11) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * Fixed incorrect python-keystonemiddleware (build-)depends version.
diff -Nru aodh-1.0.0/debian/patches/series aodh-1.0.0/debian/patches/series
--- aodh-1.0.0/debian/patches/series	1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ aodh-1.0.0/debian/patches/series	2016-04-06 10:23:28.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+use_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_sample_timestamps
diff -Nru aodh-1.0.0/debian/patches/use_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_sample_timestamps aodh-1.0.0/debian/patches/use_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_sample_timestamps
--- aodh-1.0.0/debian/patches/use_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_sample_timestamps	1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ aodh-1.0.0/debian/patches/use_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_for_sample_timestamps	2016-04-06 11:11:05.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Description: Use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH for sample timestamps
+ To get reproducible build of documentation, use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
+ environment variable (if set).
+ See https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds
+ and https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
+Author: Alexis Bienvenüe 
+
+Index: aodh-1.0.0/aodh/api/controllers/v2/alarms.py
+===
+--- aodh-1.0.0.orig/aodh/api/controllers/v2/alarms.py
 aodh-1.0.0/aodh/api/controllers/v2/alarms.py
+@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
+ # under the License.
+ 
+ import datetime
++import time
++import os
+ import itertools
+ import json
+ import uuid
+@@ -359,10 +361,10 @@ class Alarm(base.Base):
+user_id="c96c887c216949acbdfbd8b494863567",
+project_id="c96c887c216949acbdfbd8b494863567",
+enabled=True,
+-   timestamp=datetime.datetime.utcnow(),
++   timestamp=datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(float(os.environ.get('SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH', time.time(,
+state="ok",
+severity="moderate",
+-   state_timestamp=datetime.datetime.utcnow(),
++   state_timestamp=datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(float(os.environ.get('SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH', time.time(,
+ok_actions=["http://site:8000/ok;],
+alarm_actions=["http://site:8000/alarm;],
+insufficient_data_actions=["http://site:8000/nodata;],
+@@ -480,7 +482,7 @@ class AlarmChange(base.Base):
+user_id="3e5d11fda79448ac99ccefb20be187ca",
+project_id="b6f16144010811e387e4de429e99ee8c",
+on_behalf_of="92159030020611e3b26dde429e99ee8c",
+-   timestamp=datetime.datetime.utcnow(),
++   timestamp=datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(float(os.environ.get('SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH', time.time(,
+)
+ 
+ 
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

[Reproducible-builds] Bug#817248: marked as done (diffoscope 51 not uploaded to pypi)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Wed, 6 Apr 2016 11:01:32 +0200
with message-id <20160406090132.GA31477@matrix.athome>
and subject line 51 has been uploaded to PyPI
has caused the Debian Bug report #817248,
regarding diffoscope 51 not uploaded to pypi
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
817248: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=817248
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
package: diffoscope
version: 51
severity: minor
x-debbugs-cc: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" 

Hi,

thanks for making us aware of this issue!

On Mittwoch, 9. März 2016, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > FYI: I checked why I missed diffscope 49, 50, and 51.
> > It seems to be a problem with pypi:
> > https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=search=diffoscope=sear
> > ch only lists diffoscope 48 as the lastest version. So either somebody
> > forgot to upload the latest versions there, or it's not displaying them
> > for some reason.
> V. 49 is also on pypi, just doesn't show up in the search.

is there a commandline client to search on pypi? I'd like to setup an 
automatic test which will notify us, when a new diffoscope upload has been 
made to Debian, but not to pypi.

Also: who can how upload to pypi?
 
> Is there a canonical place do download a tarball of the project apart from
> pypi?

no.


cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
subject says it…

-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

[Reproducible-builds] lua-ldoc --date/SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH

[Alexis Bienvenüe]

Hi.

lua-ldoc's maintainer added a --date option that helps reproducible
building. It is used by lua-penlight.
However, awesome and lua-posix don't use it already.

What should you recommend?
1) patch awesome and lua-posix to use --date
2) patch lua-ldoc to add SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, on top of --date. This would
be more reliable, but maybe lua-ldoc will get a little messy/muddled?

Thanks for your advice,
Alexis Bienvenüe.

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