Ceridwen:
> On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 19:13 +0200, Ximin Luo wrote:
>>> For other packages, it's unclear to me whether I should specify
>>> them as depends or recommends: they aren't dependencies in a strict
>>> sense, but marking them as dependencies will make it easier to
>>> install a
Source: xprobe
Version: 0.3-2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: fileordering
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hi!
While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed
that xprobe could not be
On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 19:13 +0200, Ximin Luo wrote:
> > For other packages, it's unclear to me whether I should specify
> > them as depends or recommends: they aren't dependencies in a strict
> > sense, but marking them as dependencies will make it easier to
> > install a fully-functional
Source: gprbuild
Version: 2015-5
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
gprbuild fails to build from source in unstable/amd64:
[..]
> For other packages, it's unclear to me whether I should specify them as
> depends or recommends: they aren't dependencies in a strict sense, but
> marking them as dependencies will make it easier to install a
> fully-functional reprotest.
You should specify these as Recommends, the
Package: git-buildpackage
Version: 0.7.5
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps randomness
Hi!
While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed
that git-buildpackage could not be built reproducibly.
This is
Source: qmidinet
Version: 0.3.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
qmidinet fails to build from source in unstable/amd64:
FYI:
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:43:53AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Our FontForge package is unused since quite some time.
> While rebasing it wouldn't be hard, it actually needs some more work.
I've now moved the package away from our apt repository into the "attic"
at
