-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 24/08/15 20:24, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Well, I object strongly. Same here, in my view reproducibility is a 'nice to have' it should *never* be forced on a package. We are in the business of packaging upstream software for distribution. We should not make arbitrary changes to upstream software, such as changing the way a date is added to a man page, just to make the build reproducible. > Making a great percentage of packages in the archive to be > "suddenly" buggy is unacceptable. +1 > We all want Debian to build reproducibly Do we? Personally I'd rather stay true to the upstream. If the reproducible builds advocates want to insist on something then it should be a way of specifying an 'override' similar to that used for Lintian errors and warnings. Colin - -- Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1223 830814 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id Debian Developer | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0x38C9D903 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV23rDAAoJEPoMQQc4ydkDuN8QAKxAqoVSyW91571ZHJ5cPl5D 9m+aA6emwEHLpeVxUPxEoD7+M8uPuRTX8lUVzNUWiPN8nmcnhwJAam/8OZSLU5Dm zMent+1V3y0Cc8+W+JVh2FUIE1gxtuRxZc4Oe0EoP8rsFmfSJwhnrSX4kbuKGZlT MeAJNT0vP9apv3JPVJBUtC4xn0nI8yXwnYukvnhJKj0tcPhZGBNqMDc1SxL+rJOh hBMI49E/DS8F3rTw25KPmuK3eT3XyPtqbmay7EFnNWbB1uKTYHXfbVIKvfkSn+Q/ s6l5CMVbYQDY0H3CJlLb+TSi3DITnNcpG1TIgpAlMHPhnoBYXOxOW2xKkH+uyCBB y2qVKXa9y0feIXIhD9t8rcQjqqip3U5b4VetwzdFg5Jumh4/xjCrf3gu14N5cSYd Is+iWM64wKp2FiBqV0KGpLt+ZrV5l5t3EUIinvChU7jW9OcmPnnum1sxLhJGtcMj iPXXXrMfViwElla9My6hwRJgacRn783amgdvg++EpqJW1b/V60J9h8fxqA/y5Kbu a1JjKJe4G+D73LbyWcdxyK9I67U1AGSu575/CI/E9S1YFty/6oajTWTXvOKaxkp8 RT8IbdQubAota1xwR75t5KEb4hv2Y+rKejyAnXxd5nrnlNxcqjuXfcCDaTa87XWI jRGKisFKdFK7Th27Zn+u =vXeV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
