On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:57:20AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > There is a minimum of sanity that we should assume on the autobuilders,
>
> Agree in principle..
>
> > namely, that packages are built on a date which is later than the one
> > in the last changelog entry.
>
> .. but why should
> There is a minimum of sanity that we should assume on the autobuilders,
Agree in principle..
> namely, that packages are built on a date which is later than the one
> in the last changelog entry.
.. but why should this matter? In fact, there's a fairly strong argument
to be made that if the
Hi,
Quoting Chris Lamb (2015-09-30 11:57:20)
> > There is a minimum of sanity that we should assume on the autobuilders,
>
> Agree in principle..
>
> > namely, that packages are built on a date which is later than the one
> > in the last changelog entry.
>
> .. but why should this matter? In
> I would not find it unreasonable if a build would fail if some of the
> software that is run either during compilation or testing stages detects
> that some of the files they are working on have a timestamp from the future.
I didn't consider the mtime case carefully enough. I agree with you.
Hi.
Are we building packages in the *past* now?:
https://reproducible.debian.net/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/base-files.html
There is a minimum of sanity that we should assume on the autobuilders,
namely, that packages are built on a date which is later than the one
in the last changelog entry.
So
