Re: [Reproducible-builds] Preliminary review of dpkg-genbuildinfo

2015-02-12 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Preliminary review of dpkg-genbuildinfo

2015-02-11 Thread Jérémy Bobbio
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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Preliminary review of dpkg-genbuildinfo

2015-02-05 Thread Guillem Jover
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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Preliminary review of dpkg-genbuildinfo

2015-02-04 Thread Holger Levsen
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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Preliminary review of dpkg-genbuildinfo

2015-02-03 Thread Jérémy Bobbio
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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Preliminary review of dpkg-genbuildinfo

2015-02-03 Thread Guillem Jover
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

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Preliminary review of dpkg-genbuildinfo

2015-02-01 Thread Jérémy Bobbio
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