On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 10:57:26PM +0530, Mohd Bilal wrote: > Thanks for the pointer ! I tried removing the usage of '__DATE__' via a > patch
I think this is not right. Either also remove printing the last %s, so it doesn't output any compilation date. Or properly subsitute compilation date via SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH[3] > but still I'm getting this error in CI[2] . I'm having trouble finding > out what is causing this error. If you look closely, reprotest fails in the _process of running_, and it is not the result of reprotest that fails. Some problem with CI. It works for me locally though | $ sudo reprotest --vary=-build_path,domain_host.use_sudo=1 --auto-build --min-cpus=5 ../gifticlib_1.0.9-5.dsc -- schroot sid-amd64-sbuild | [...] | Reproducible, even when varying as much as reprotest knows how to! :) | ======================= | Reproduction successful | ======================= | No differences in ./*.deb | 1be727a6b11e6b4bb051afe4258246440fcc4b224bd878fcc64fc575973ccc11 ./gifti-bin-dbgsym_1.0.9-5_amd64.deb | ba8506533fc8cfce5883adbf5defe0c1024bc482c1946320108ea1ff4257fa18 ./gifti-bin_1.0.9-5_amd64.deb | ed2eb1bb499806dbcee3886aef362c79090f2b9fe6d03f93e9ee5abe423d6421 ./libgiftiio-dev_1.0.9-5_amd64.deb | c68f12e90f18c9cdf0c2386b6950b18298e80b560ae4cf7cfd51802a6fbd9259 ./libgiftiio0-dbgsym_1.0.9-5_amd64.deb | 9b992146f17bf0abeac9b62c975505c5edd79cec897bf111bb2050a2d7fd67dd ./libgiftiio0_1.0.9-5_amd64.deb However weirdly enough, I re-triggered the salsa CI and now it shows a proper failure (contrary to my local sys). On doing a diffoscope, I am seeing 4 bytes shift at multiple places. │ │ │ │ - 0x000000000000000a (STRSZ) 655 (bytes) │ │ │ │ + 0x000000000000000a (STRSZ) 659 (bytes) │ │ │ │ - 0x000000006ffffff0 (VERSYM) 0xa78 │ │ │ │ + 0x000000006ffffff0 (VERSYM) 0xa7c Most likely it is some build path issue, this comes when two diff build paths on reprotest specific envs (paths starting with 1/ and 2/ IIRC) differ. GNU Build ID is probably a good indicator for the same │ │ │ │ - GNU 0x00000014 NT_GNU_BUILD_ID (unique build ID bitstring) Build ID: 9de0fd8fa76dae494291afd1fedd8f07e6043b1f │ │ │ │ + GNU 0x00000014 NT_GNU_BUILD_ID (unique build ID bitstring) Build ID: 150709fb739950fcc1da435340a8242eb8d77b2b If you ask me, IMO you could leave it. Or if you are interested to dig in, reproducible builds mailing list is the right place to ask further. Also, please fix the lintian warnings (you added copyr in a wrong order as it seems) | W: gifticlib source: globbing-patterns-out-of-order debian/tests/data/new.gii debian/* debian/tests/data/new.gii [debian/copyright:16] | W: gifticlib source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright other [debian/copyright:7] | W: gifti-bin: no-manual-page usr/bin/gifti_tool | W: gifticlib source: superfluous-file-pattern debian/tests/data/new.gii [debian/copyright:9] > [2] - https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/gifticlib/-/jobs/2840927#L815 [3]: https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/source-date-epoch/ [4]: PS: While it is nice that you bottom post in your mails, but please consider to trim out un-needed content and prune-out the part of email you aren't replying to (like I and Andreas do) Speaking from the peanut gallery here, that it sometimes gets pretty difficult for me to filter out your replies because they get lost in heaps of quoted text. -- Best, Nilesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
