On 2017-01-16 14:28, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 02:19:44PM +, Paul Sherwood wrote:
On 2017-01-16 11:26, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Before I use this rationale more times in some discussions out there,
> I'd
> like to be sure that there is a consensus.
&
On 2017-01-16 11:26, Santiago Vila wrote:
Before I use this rationale more times in some discussions out there,
I'd
like to be sure that there is a consensus.
What's the definition of reproducible? It is more like A or more like
B?
A. Every time the package is attempted to build, the build
On 2017-12-28 14:01, Nicolas Vigier wrote:
I see value in establishing that the history of a repo is what it
claims to
be; widespread access to the source of GitLab gives me some
(misplaced?)
comfort, but I may be wrong.
Widespread access to the source of GitLab is nice so that anybody can
On 2017-12-27 17:38, Nicolas Vigier wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017, Paul Sherwood wrote:
- Github is proprietary, so we can not properly assess what is being
done
to/with the repos, or who is doing it.
While there might be other reasons to prefer using services from people
who also publish free
On 2017-12-25 22:25, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi reproducible Debian folks,
I guess you have seen
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/12/msg3.html
which lead to this on -devel:
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:59:21PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017, Holger Levsen
