[Reproducible-builds] lua-ldoc --date/SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
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
[Reproducible-builds] Bug#817248: marked as done (diffoscope 51 not uploaded to pypi)
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&term=diffoscope&submit=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] Bug#820179: aodh: please make the build reproducible (timestamps)
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#820183: cython: please make the build reproducible (timestamps)
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
Re: [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. > 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
Re: [Reproducible-builds] lua-ldoc --date/SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
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
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
[Reproducible-builds] Bug#820194: nasm: please make the build reproducible (font ordering in documentation)
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] Bug#818856: diffoscope: crashes on broken symlinks
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
Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#818856: Bug#818856: diffoscope: crashes on broken symlinks
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
[Reproducible-builds] Bug#820240: lua-ldoc: please honour SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
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
[Reproducible-builds] Bug#818856: Bug#818856: diffoscope: crashes on broken symlinks
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