Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2017-01-01 Thread Adam Borowski
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 05:40:44PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > The only correct "solution" I see while keeping the current mess, would > be to declare binNMU versions a globally shared resource across all > architectures (in and out of archive!), trigger them globally for all > architectures (or

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2017-01-01 Thread Guillem Jover
[ Had this half-drafted, but had not found the time to finish it up until now. ] Hi! On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 13:52:18 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: > misleading timestamps in binnmus"): > > Instead

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-12-01 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:51:39PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2016-12-01 16:24:16) > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the > > > "nmu" command of

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-12-01 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2016-12-01 16:24:16) > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the > > "nmu" command of wanna-build to also add an option that allows setting a > > timestamp, or even

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-12-01 Thread Wouter Verhelst
Hi, (Sorry for piping in so late to the party here) On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the > "nmu" command of wanna-build to also add an option that allows setting a > timestamp, or even let

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-11-14 Thread Andreas Metzler
Ian Jackson wrote: [...] > I'm not a fan of the idea of merely adding 1 second per binnmu. That > would mean that making a second binnmu correctly would involve looking > in the archive to see what the previous binnmu timestamp was. [...] The reference point

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-11-14 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi, thanks for having this discussion! On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-11-14 17:33:55) > > Can I ask you the converse question: what same-timestamp proposal do > > you think is best and why ? > > I found Guillem's suggestion the most

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-11-14 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-11-14 17:33:55) > Unless the timestamp is of the binnmu request, plumbing to try to get > the same timestamp will be difficult. > > I'm not a fan of the idea of merely adding 1 second per binnmu. That > would mean that making a second binnmu correctly would involve

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-11-14 Thread Ian Jackson
Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus"): > I want to understand why passing the same timestamp to all > architectures is an inferior solution to your proposal. This is a sensible question. Thanks for helpin

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-11-14 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-11-14 14:52:18) >I don't think it is possible to make the binnmu timestamp the same >across architectures. For example, a package might be rebuilt only >on some architectures. I don't think we want to change that. In >particular, even if we were

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-11-14 Thread Ian Jackson
Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus"): > Instead, file conflicts might be created from files with > content that depends on SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. tl;dr: Analysis. Revised proposal: Introduce BUILD_DA

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

2016-11-11 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Ximin Luo (2016-11-10 18:13:00) > Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:59:48AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > One solution would be to increase SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH by 1 second for every > > > binNMU to a package. > > > > > > Any other ideas? > > set