On 30/09/2021 16:28:56+0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> But if it's not removed from repro exceptions you won't get an error if
> it's still not reproducible.
>
Sure, I'll remove it.
> Alex
>
> On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 16:27, Alexandre Belloni <
> alexandre.bell...@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> > On
But if it's not removed from repro exceptions you won't get an error if
it's still not reproducible.
Alex
On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 16:27, Alexandre Belloni <
alexandre.bell...@bootlin.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/2021 16:12:30+0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > Does this mean ruby can be dropped from r
On 30/09/2021 16:12:30+0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> Does this mean ruby can be dropped from reproducibility exception list?
>
That is the goal, I'll run that through the autobuilders
> Alex
>
> On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 16:04, Thomas Perrot
> wrote:
>
> > Apply some changes on the Ruby make
Hello,
On Thu, 2021-09-30 at 16:12 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> Does this mean ruby can be dropped from reproducibility exception
> list?
>
I think so, but it would be nice to run some additional build tests on
autobuilder before, because it's not often obvious to reproduce this
kind of iss
Does this mean ruby can be dropped from reproducibility exception list?
Alex
On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 16:04, Thomas Perrot
wrote:
> Apply some changes on the Ruby makefiles in order to fix the
> reproducibility:
> - use a fixed timestamp,
> - sort linked objects,
> - doesn't use the current date
Apply some changes on the Ruby makefiles in order to fix the reproducibility:
- use a fixed timestamp,
- sort linked objects,
- doesn't use the current date,
- and use UTC date.
[YOCTO #14268]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perrot
---
...doc-build-reproducible-documentation.patch | 35 ++
...-li
