Hi Thorsten,
> thanks! I did not want to get too deep into yak shaving in the
> dark hours of the night
Absolutely nothing to apologise for. It's far better the report exists
rather than it falling between the cracks and not being reported, even
if it requires a quick 'n' easy reassign (thanks Niels).
> >(Just as an aside, how come the tests fail? Are they looking
>
> No, I just said this might make tests in packages fail, or
> something worse, like embedding PNGs into output of programs
> causing them to not be reproducible any more.
I can see how it may make tests fail if they were naively comparing
checksums or similar, but I'm not sure how this could make a package
not reproducible. As in, we would surely just be moving from one set
timestamp (the "original") to another timestamp (taken from the
changelog in this particular case), both of which are fixed between
builds of the same version.
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` [email protected] 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
