Hi! On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 12:26:13 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > Looking at this I notice we have some changes without bugs and some > changes involving several bugs, still I think it would be good to > discuss them as uploaded. > > IOW: dear dpkg maintainers, what are your comments regarding getting the > following changes into sid: > > a.) single timestamp for ar headers
Pending rereview of local changes, and staged until the treewalk changes have brewed in the rebootstrap, reproducible rebuilds and in unstable for a bit. I might have added this earlier if the treewalk code had been tested earlier, but didn't want to entangle these kind of changes together w/o prior wide testing. > b.) common build timestamp for all files created at a later time Pending release of new upstream tar. And the patch reworked to stop trying to detect the presence of --clamp-mtime at run-time. > c.) build timestamp using SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH Should be fine, I've added infrastructure to not have to use date(1), but otherwise should get in probably for 1.18.8 already. > d.) preset build timestamp to latest changelog entry I've been reluctant to consider this before the .buildinfo is generated and ideally actually stored in ftp-master. But I think at this point, I think I'll just merge it, so that we can get reproducible ar containers in the archive. Or I could merge WIP .buildinfo support and mark it as Format 0.0 and then we can tune it until we consider it ready and then mark it 1.0, let's see. > e.) normalize file permissions when creating control.tar The current change in the repro git is not correct as it changes the perms for control.tar and data.tar. The side-effects of refactoring! I've to take a look at this. > f.) add support for .buildinfo files I need to finish commenting on this, hopefully in the coming days. And wasn't it missing at least man pages for the .buildinfo file? > g.) teach dpkg-genbuildinfo the new --build=[...] syntax This should be squashed in the existing patch before submission. > And, do we need bugs for a+b+c+g ? No need. Thanks, Guillem
