On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:26:39AM -0300, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
> BTW, can another builds be retried?
yes, every team member has a mean to schedule packages for building.
> I was interested on retriggering jruby build since is tagged as FTBFS
> since some days ago and I know for sure is not
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:26:39AM -0300, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
> BTW, can another builds be retried?
yes, every team member has a mean to schedule packages for building.
> I was interested on retriggering jruby build since is tagged as FTBFS
> since some days ago and I know for sure is not
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:57:20AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > There is a minimum of sanity that we should assume on the autobuilders,
>
> Agree in principle..
>
> > namely, that packages are built on a date which is later than the one
> > in the last changelog entry.
>
> .. but why should
Hi,
Am 30.09.2015 um 12:30 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> Hi,
>
> (mostly ignoring the rest as this has been addressed already.)
>
> On Dienstag, 29. September 2015, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I understand that everything is still in development. However I don't
>> think a public mailing list is a
Hi,
On Dienstag, 29. September 2015, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Are we really spamming people with this?
> (spam = unsolicited bulk email)
no, we dont.
please read https://reproducible.debian.net/index_notify.html
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
> There is a minimum of sanity that we should assume on the autobuilders,
Agree in principle..
> namely, that packages are built on a date which is later than the one
> in the last changelog entry.
.. but why should this matter? In fact, there's a fairly strong argument
to be made that if the
Hi,
Quoting Chris Lamb (2015-09-30 11:57:20)
> > There is a minimum of sanity that we should assume on the autobuilders,
>
> Agree in principle..
>
> > namely, that packages are built on a date which is later than the one
> > in the last changelog entry.
>
> .. but why should this matter? In
> I would not find it unreasonable if a build would fail if some of the
> software that is run either during compilation or testing stages detects
> that some of the files they are working on have a timestamp from the future.
I didn't consider the mtime case carefully enough. I agree with you.
Hi.
Are we building packages in the *past* now?:
https://reproducible.debian.net/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/base-files.html
There is a minimum of sanity that we should assume on the autobuilders,
namely, that packages are built on a date which is later than the one
in the last changelog entry.
So
Le 30/09/2015 13:00, Markus Koschany a écrit :
> We have never discussed this before as a team. I vote for unsubscribing
> pkg-java because of the issues that were pointed out already.
I did request the notifications for the team, but I didn't really expect
so many false positives. Sorry for the
debhelper_9.20150811.0~reproducible5.dsc has just been uploaded to
https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/ExperimentalToolchain
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 02:27:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
> Markus (and the others), do you think it's ok to keep the notifications
> if they are limited to unstable ? Or would you prefer disabling them
> completely until the build environment stabilizes?
I think there is value in
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:04:31PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
> I'm very sorry about those particular emails.
> The last two days we had sever issues with the build host that cause a
> really big bunch of FTBFS due to ENOSPC.
> All the affected packages are already queued up for rebuilding,
Am 30.09.2015 um 16:15 schrieb Mattia Rizzolo:
[...]
> This wouldn't work with the current implementation, which is emailing
> $p...@packages.debian.org. Anyway, I received a suggestion of setting up
> a new PTS keyword, so then people can go and subscribe there, maybe
> using the team facility
On 2015-09-28, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> Le jeudi 24 septembre 2015 à 09:05 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian a écrit :
>> I think the use of "time = mktime(time_universal);" is where the problem
>> lies:
>
> […]
>
>> According to the mktime manpage:
>>
>>The mktime() function converts a
Your mail to 'Pbuilder-maint' with the subject
pbuilder changed in unstable: FTBFS -> unreproducible
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Message has implicit destination
Either the message will get posted to the list, or you
16 matches
Mail list logo
