On Monday, July 22, 2024 12:51:33 PM EDT Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> > On a possibly related note, recent versions of man now produce a stack of
> > warnings for postconf.f (this is the first one, there are 244, one for
> > each
> > line of the man
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> On a possibly related note, recent versions of man now produce a stack of
> warnings for postconf.f (this is the first one, there are 244, one for each
> line of the man page):
>
> warning: cannot select font 'C' [usr/share/man/man5/postconf.5.gz:1]
I recall
On Sunday, July 21, 2024 1:21:47 PM EDT Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> > Unfortunately, I got distracted from reporting back on this again.
> > Sorting
> > AUXLIBS is also needed to make things reproducible:
> >
> > Index: postfix/makedefs
> > ==
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> Unfortunately, I got distracted from reporting back on this again. Sorting
> AUXLIBS is also needed to make things reproducible:
>
> Index: postfix/makedefs
> ===
> --- postfix.orig/makedefs
> ++
Unfortunately, I got distracted from reporting back on this again. Sorting
AUXLIBS is also needed to make things reproducible:
Index: postfix/makedefs
===
--- postfix.orig/makedefs
+++ postfix/makedefs
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ echo "#---
I expected the same, but our CI test for reproducibility passed without it. I
was surprised. Hopefully I'm about to learn something.
Scott K
On January 30, 2024 4:00:59 PM UTC, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
wrote:
>On 30.01.24 10:12, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote:
>> It
On 30.01.24 10:12, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote:
It looks to me like it does fix it.
Isn't/was't the sort important? (I'd expect it to be)
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:14:09 AM EST Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> In case anyone is unfa
It looks to me like it does fix it.
Thanks,
Scott K
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:14:09 AM EST Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> > In case anyone is unfamiliar, you can read about reproducible builds here:
> > reproducible-builds.org
> >
> > It loo
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> In case anyone is unfamiliar, you can read about reproducible builds here:
> reproducible-builds.org
>
> It looks like Postfix as shipped is very close to being reproducible. We got
> positive results on reproducibility with the patch below added. Is this
