On 30.06.2015 17:37, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>> for the new python-requirements-detector I've got a UnicodeDecodeError in
>> the tests against
>> Python 3.4 [1] from reproducible builds CI [2]. That usually points to the
>> locale set to some
>> non-UTF-8 (like "C"), but which isn't the case here?
Source: python-repoze.who
Version: 1.0.18-4
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hi,
While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed
that python-repoze
Source: python-pygraphviz
Version: 1.3~rc2-3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hi,
While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed
that python-pygra
Source: gnome-packagekit
Version: 3.14.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
Dear Maintainer,
The package fails to build:
In file included from gpk-prefs.c:3
Source: libodb-qt
Version: 2.4.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid
Justification: fails to build from source
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
Dear Maintainer,
The package fails to build. First(?), Qt doesn't get found:
configure:17847: g++ -c -g -O2 -fstack-protecto
Package: pluginhook
Version: 0~20150216.0~a320158-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
Dear Maintainer,
The package fails to build:
src/github.com/progrium/pl
Hi,
This afternoon I was commenting on the channel that I'd find it useful
if the list of packages in rb.d.n could be split into the ones that
already have a submitted patch and the ones that don't. I'd find this
useful when looking for new packages to patch, hopefully it can be
useful to others.
On 30.06.2015 17:37, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:09:08PM +0200, Daniel Stender wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi there! :D
>
>> for the new python-requirements-detector I've got a UnicodeDecodeError in
>> the tests against
>> Python 3.4 [1] from reproducible builds CI [2]. That usually
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:09:08PM +0200, Daniel Stender wrote:
> Hi,
Hi there! :D
> for the new python-requirements-detector I've got a UnicodeDecodeError in the
> tests against
> Python 3.4 [1] from reproducible builds CI [2]. That usually points to the
> locale set to some
> non-UTF-8 (like
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:19:31AM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> The Haskell team seems to get a *lot* of these emails, since it tends to
> be that many of our packages change state (e.g. to and from FTBFS or get
> fixed/broken) at the same time.
I also wonder how many (I don't dare checking!) email y
Hi,
for the new python-requirements-detector I've got a UnicodeDecodeError in the
tests against
Python 3.4 [1] from reproducible builds CI [2]. That usually points to the
locale set to some
non-UTF-8 (like "C"), but which isn't the case here?
Thanks for hints,
Daniel Stender
[1] https://bugs.d
Hi Reproducers, thanks for your work!
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 09:11:06AM +, Reproducible builds folks wrote:
> More information on
> https://reproducible.debian.net/unstable/amd64/haskell-mime-mail, feel free
> to reply to this email to get more help.
The Haskell team seems to get a *lot* o
Hi Akira,
In case you weren't aware before, we recently decided to try to promote the use
of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH as a standard environment variable for timestamps during
builds.
See https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsProposal for details.
Please write or amend your patches base
Hi,
We are trying to develop a standard environment variable for this purpose,
please see:
https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsProposal
Any chance you can rewrite the patch to use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in unix timestamp
format? The reason for preferring this over the ISO8601 forma
14 matches
Mail list logo