Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 903446 + pending
Bug #903446 [diffoscope] diffoscope: libarchive.exception.ArchiveError:
Unrecognized archive format (via comparators.debian) with lie/2.2.2+dfsg-3
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me i
tags 903446 + pending
thanks
This is now fixed in Git, pending upload. I can confirm that (at
least) the previously-regressing rlib tests do not fail now.
The commit/diffstat is at:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/diffoscope/commit/cd4c64234a7eebe71fb6bdea21850622f3f5c4c8
diff
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 913315 + pending
Bug #913315 [diffoscope] diffoscope: crash with PyPDF2.utils.PdfReadError with
some packages
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
913315: https://bugs.debian
tags 913315 + pending
thanks
Fixed in Git, pending upload:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/diffoscope/commit/9624319001171a59e8de0f220cedd71fcebf7ee9
diffoscope/comparators/pdf.py | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' :
Gentile Mattia,
> I think the most proper thing to do would be to understand why it's not
> falling back to hex comparison when libarchive raises its exception?
We could have such a "brute force" solution indeed but poking very
quickly I think either the code or the comment is incorrect here:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 12:04:15PM -0500, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Sure. Fixed in Git, pending upload:
>
> I have reverted this as it causes regressions in the rlib tests:
I think the most proper thing to do would be to understand why it's not
falling back to hex comparison when libarchive raises it
tags 903446 - pending
thanks
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Sure. Fixed in Git, pending upload:
I have reverted this as it causes regressions in the rlib tests:
tests/comparators/test_rlib.py::test_identification FAILED [
81%]
tests/comparators/test_rlib.py::test_no_differences PASS
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 903446 - pending
Bug #903446 [diffoscope] diffoscope: libarchive.exception.ArchiveError:
Unrecognized archive format (via comparators.debian) with lie/2.2.2+dfsg-3
Removed tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 903446 + pending
Bug #903446 [diffoscope] diffoscope: libarchive.exception.ArchiveError:
Unrecognized archive format (via comparators.debian) with lie/2.2.2+dfsg-3
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me i
tags 903446 + pending
thanks
On #debian-reproducible:
< mapreri> lamby: one thing I'd love if you could help with is
#903446 - I have some trouble following through the
may indirections and I don't understand why it's not
falling back to binary comparison
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 803503 + pending
Bug #803503 [src:strip-nondeterminism] libfile-stripnondeterminism-perl: substr
outside of string at /usr/share/perl5/File/StripNondeterminism/handlers/zip.pm
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please
tags 803503 + pending
thanks
Chris Lamb wrote:
> As I mention, we are detecting this case, so the only real fix
> would be to not print such warnings or this is not a bug in the
> first place.
I sincerely apologise for this but actually we weren't detecting
that case. I was getting confused by s
Package: diffoscope
Version: 104
Severity: important
Seen with several packages, for example gle-graphics/unstable/amd64
right now.
Thu Nov 8 21:45:12 UTC 2018 I: diffoscope 104 will be used to compare the two
builds:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/d
On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 11:55:38 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Actually, I guess the other option that might be an option for stable is
> to make dpkg-buildpackage generate the buildinfo file itself, and on
> source-only uploads force the name to be _source.buildinfo regardless
> of the options passe
Hi!
On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 11:48:27 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 20:28:57 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:24:01PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > > We were again biten by this issue for some security-updates (most
> > > recent one nginx). Do
Hi!
On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 20:28:57 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:24:01PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > We were again biten by this issue for some security-updates (most
> > recent one nginx). Do any involved parties know, was there any
> > progress in adressing
16 matches
Mail list logo
