> Umh, this has nothing to do with ELF.
Ah, see; I'm completely clueless :)
> It's only about the .buildinfo file.
>
> The canonical filename of .buildinfo file is:
> ${pkg}_${ver}_${random-string}.buildinfo
Why is there (normally) a random string there?
Regards,
--
,''`.
:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:24:24AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:36:17PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > +dpkg (1.18.10.0~reproducible1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
> > + * Continue to support --buildinfo-identifier as an override for
> > +--buildinfo-id, as jenkins
Hi Mattia,
First, thanks for working on this.
> > > + * Continue to support --buildinfo-identifier as an override for
> > > +--buildinfo-id, as jenkins is using it atm.
> >
> > shall we switch and use --buildinfo-id on jenkins?
I was wondering whether you had a brief moment to outline —
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > > + * Continue to support --buildinfo-identifier as an override for
> > > > +--buildinfo-id, as jenkins is using it atm.
> > >
> > > shall we switch and use --buildinfo-id on jenkins?
>
> I was wondering whether you had a
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:36:17PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> +dpkg (1.18.10.0~reproducible1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
> + * Continue to support --buildinfo-identifier as an override for
> +--buildinfo-id, as jenkins is using it atm.
shall we switch and use --buildinfo-id on
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:44:57AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > shall we switch and use --buildinfo-id on jenkins?
> yes, patch incoming.
:)
> That's the option guillem prefer, so I see no real reason to differ.
> I only added that code to support the currently used
> --buildinfo-identifier
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:24:46PM +, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Mattia Rizzolo:
> > Next steps:
> > it would be great if somebody could figure what's the real gain of
> > having .dsc in Checksums-Sha256.
>
> This is how .buildinfo files have linked a source package in an
> unambiguous manner to
Mattia Rizzolo:
> Next steps:
> it would be great if somebody could figure what's the real gain of
> having .dsc in Checksums-Sha256.
This is how .buildinfo files have linked a source package in an
unambiguous manner to the resulting binaries. I see how the current
specification is giving you
They told me it was not totally clear what happens here, why I did this
upload, what triggered the chanegs I did, and why last night.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:55:55PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> dpkg_1.18.10.0~reproducible1.dsc has just been uploaded to
>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:37:02PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > The canonical filename of .buildinfo file is:
> > ${pkg}_${ver}_${random-string}.buildinfo
>
> Why is there (normally) a random string there?
Because that way people can upload different .buildinfo files for a
single
Chris Lamb wrote on Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 20:58:29 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Example output:
>
> Alas I'm not very learned in ELF, so I will trust the specifics are fine,
> but just to check:
>
I'm not too familiar with ELF either. I know a little about which
C variables live in
Mattia Rizzolo:
> The reason we like to have a static string in there (and in jenkins we
> use the host architecture), is that otherwise diffoscope would be noisy
> about the difference in the name if we compared the .changes files […].
Would it still be the case after Satyam's work which
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:13:42PM +, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Mattia Rizzolo:
> > The reason we like to have a static string in there (and in jenkins we
> > use the host architecture), is that otherwise diffoscope would be noisy
> > about the difference in the name if we compared the .changes
> I was thinking of something like the HTML tag. In my browser,
> foo renders «foo» with a dotted underline
> whose raison d'être is your concern (a)
Even so, you can't search the page with CTRL+F and, of course, it makes the
output too different between --text and --html :)
Anyway, small
Dear Mattia,
> They told me it was not totally clear what happens here, why I did this
> upload, what triggered the chanegs I did, and why last night.
[..]
Wow, so much detail! Was not expecting that, thank you. Will try and
introduce this into this week's blog post :)
Regards,
--
This is the second time i am sending you this mail.I, Friedrich Mayrhofer
Donate $ 1,000,000.00 to You, Email Me personally for more details.Regards.
Friedrich Mayrhofer___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hi,
Mattia, thanks a lot for this great description what you did why!
Really awesome.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:35:27PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> well, why, considering a single-archive world, is Source+Version fields
> in .buildinfo not enough to link the binaries to the source?
well, if
17 matches
Mail list logo
