Hi,
not wanting to spoil the fun, but…
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 06:33:49PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > Ah great! And one less way to leak local information.
> yep :)
I *believe* it's not enough (for reproducible builds in arbitrary
pathes) if gcc+clang can now cope. IIRC there are other
On Tue 2016-03-29 20:58:32 -0400, Holger Levsen wrote:
> not wanting to spoil the fun, but…
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 06:33:49PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> > Ah great! And one less way to leak local information.
>> yep :)
>
> I *believe* it's not enough (for reproducible builds in arbit
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 09:36:00PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> This isn't fun-spoiling, it's a useful reality check. But if we were
> required to get all the way to 100% before we made any progress, then
> reproducible builds wouldn't have gotten off the ground at all.
it's surely pr
package: diffoscope
version: 51
severity: important
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 04:39:05AM +, Debian testing autoremoval watch
wrote:
> diffoscope 51 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2016-05-04
>
> It (build-)depends on packages with these RC bugs:
> 818917: ruby2.2: Replaced by ru
Hi Val,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:57:03PM -0400, Valerie R Young wrote:
> >(And you should have a local testbed anyway, to be able to develop+test
> >your code. As its mostly about the webpages, you also dont need jenkins
> >for that nor do you need to be running tests. Just experimenting with
>
On Tue 2016-03-29 21:52:53 -0400, Holger Levsen wrote:
> it's surely progress on the gcc/clang side of things but dropping the
> build path from the .buildinfo files would be a huge step *backwards*
> for reproducibility…
No one is arguing for dropping the build path from .buildinfo files.
As we
