Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published — thanks to all who contributed. We didn't
know what to do with the FOSDEM stuff (technically February, not January
so I will do a separate post tomorrow).
Anyway, please share the
Hey folks,
Please glance over the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2024-01/?draft
… which you can also do via the Git repository itself:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/blob/master/_reports/2024-01.md
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published — thanks to all who contributed.
If possible, please share the following link:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2023-01/
.. and also consider retweeting:
Thanks!
2023年2月3日(金) 22:20 Chris Lamb :
> Hey kpcyrd,
>
> >> Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
> >
> > There was a recent update on rb-general@ by Akihiro Suda about
> > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in BuildKit v0.11 that I consider very noteworthy
> > (although it was
Hey kpcyrd,
>> Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
>
> There was a recent update on rb-general@ by Akihiro Suda about
> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in BuildKit v0.11 that I consider very noteworthy
> (although it was technically in February). :)
Great idea, especially as
On 2/2/23 21:14, Chris Lamb wrote:
Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
There was a recent update on rb-general@ by Akihiro Suda about
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in BuildKit v0.11 that I consider very noteworthy
(although it was technically in February). :)
Hi all,
Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2023-01/?draft
… or via the Git repository itself:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/blob/master/_reports/2023-01.md
I intend to publish it no
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published — thanks to all who contributed.
If possible, please share the following link:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2022-01/
.. and also consider retweeting:
Hi all,
Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2022-01/?draft
⦠or, via the Git repository itself:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/blob/master/_reports/2022-01.md
I intend to publish it
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published; many thanks to all who contributed.
Please share the following URL:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2021-01/
Alternatively, if you are into that kind of thing, please
Hi all,
Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2021-01/?draft
⦠or, via the Git repository itself:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/blob/master/_reports/2021-01.md
I intend to publish it
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Please review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
This has now been published; many thanks to all who contributed.
Please share the following URL:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2020-01/
Alternatively, if you are into that kind of thing, please
Hi all,
Apologies for the short delay here (blame FOSDEM...!) but please
review the draft for January's Reproducible Builds report:
https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2020-01/?draft
… or, via the Git repository itself:
13 matches
Mail list logo