Guillem Jover:
> On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 15:09:36 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > In any case, given this, your initial change does make sense, but I
> > think it's in the wrong place. I've instead modified Dpkg::Dist::Files
> > to always sort the files list, so that any other program parsing that
>
Hi!
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 15:09:36 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> In any case, given this, your initial change does make sense, but I
> think it's in the wrong place. I've instead modified Dpkg::Dist::Files
> to always sort the files list, so that any other program parsing that
> file will automati
Cyril Brulebois (2015-04-27):
> I think you may want to additional patch scripts/Dpkg/Checksums.pm and
> possibly scripts/Dpkg/Source/Package.pm; you may otherwise get a sorted
> list under Files, but not under Checksums-*?
The attached patch seems to work OK with tasksel and its kinda huge list
Guillem Jover (2015-04-27):
> Yes! Parallel builds, which I confirmed you are using from the logs,
> and I guess I assumed you where not using.
>
> In any case, given this, your initial change does make sense, but I
> think it's in the wrong place. I've instead modified Dpkg::Dist::Files
> to alw
Hi!
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 14:14:57 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Jérémy Bobbio:
> > > > +foreach my $file (sort $dist->get_files()) {
> > >
> > > Why the sort, the function is supposed to preserve the same insertion
> > > order.
> >
> > Now I think I remember what was happening. In case of paral
Jérémy Bobbio (2015-04-27):
> Now this happened again on vim. The order of files in the .changes is
> not stable:
> https://reproducible.debian.net/dbd/unstable/amd64/vim_7.4.712-1.debbindiff.html
>
> The full build log is available at:
> https://jenkins.debian.net/job/reproducible_builder_zeta/6
Jérémy Bobbio:
> > > +foreach my $file (sort $dist->get_files()) {
> >
> > Why the sort, the function is supposed to preserve the same insertion
> > order.
>
> Now I think I remember what was happening. In case of parallel builds,
> it might be possible that files get added to debian/files in dif
On Fri 2015-02-06 01:13:18 -0500, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Take the example I gave previously of a binary package detached from
> an archive, just a .deb package laying around, either from an old
> download or passed to you by someone. You have to *know* the origin of
> the binary, otherwise you need
Hi!
Now back to your comments on the code:
Guillem Jover:
> > diff --git a/debian/usertags b/debian/usertags
> > index 0fc26f2..0419488 100644
> > --- a/debian/usertags
> > +++ b/debian/usertags
> > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ dpkg-checkbuilddeps [DPKG-CHECKBUILDDEPS]
> > dpkg-deb [DPKG-DE
Hi,
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 14:36:12 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sonntag, 1. Februar 2015, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > * I'm still somewhat unconvinced that having byte-for-byte identical
> >container binary .deb packages is the ideal minimal reproducible
> >unit.
>
> I'm getting more an
Hi Guillem,
thanks a lot for support (including sharing your critism!) in making dpkg(-
dev) suitable for reproducible builds! Very very much appreciated.
I'll keep my comments brief, as Lunar said most already.
Also please note that we'll be announcing the reproducible builds project (in
it's
Guillem Jover:
> On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 10:46:50 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > Guillem Jover:
> > > * I'm not entirely sure if this really makes sense as a different
> > >file, but at least given that it's controlled by dpkg-buildpackage
> > >we can always fold it into dpkg-genchanges if
Hi!
On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 10:46:50 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > Looking at .
> >
> > Have you seen any actual problem to warrant the «Ensure stable order
> > of Checksums-* fields» commit? In principle the output order is
> > preserved from the input one.
>
> I have seen the
Guillem Jover:
> Looking at .
>
> Have you seen any actual problem to warrant the «Ensure stable order
> of Checksums-* fields» commit? In principle the output order is
> preserved from the input one.
I have seen the ordering differ, but I might have misunderstood the
source of the problem. Unfor
Hi!
Looking at .
Have you seen any actual problem to warrant the «Ensure stable order
of Checksums-* fields» commit? In principle the output order is
preserved from the input one.
And here's a quickish review of the dpkg-genbuildinfo changes, taking
into account that I'm looking at this as a gen
15 matches
Mail list logo
