Bug#961864: debrebuild: creates wrong commandline for binNMUs

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, debrebuild creates wrong commandlines for binNMU, because the source field in .buildinfo files looks different for binNMUs than normal uploads. Normal uploads have these entries: Source: libqcow Version: 20181227-1.1 binNMUs

Bug#961862: debrebuild: should assemble the source for binNMUs

package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net Dear Maintainer, TTBOMK currently there is no tool to assemble the source for a binNMU. The source for a binNMU has do be assembled like this: - take the normal source package and unpa

Bug#961861: debrebuild: should (optionally) download the source too

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, even though current .buildinfo files in Debian don't contain the hashes of the source package (as we mandated in our original design) it would be great if debrebuild could, at least optionally also download the source packages.

Bug#961859: reproducible-check: should not show results on Ubuntu and other distros != Debian

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net hi, reproducible-check should not show any results on Ubuntu as Ubuntu is not involved in Reproducible Builds and not doing any efforts. TTBOMK they also don't publish their .buildinfo

Bug#961858: reproducible-check: should be explicit about just showing CI results

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 Severity: normal hi, reproducible-check shows how many of the installed binary packages are (un)reproducible in our current CI framework, that is these results only show the theoretical reproducibility of these Debian pacakges, they *do not* however show any r

Bug#961857: reproducible-check: incomprehensive and too good results

Package: devscripts Version: 2.20.3 x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net Hi, on a sid system I get this when running reproducible-check from devscripts: $ reproducible-check alsa-lib (1.2.2-2.1) is unreproducible (libasound2)

Bug#949598: marked as done (diffoscope: Should Recommend python3-rpm)

Your message dated Sat, 30 May 2020 11:48:32 + with message-id and subject line Bug#949598: fixed in diffoscope 146 has caused the Debian Bug report #949598, regarding diffoscope: Should Recommend python3-rpm to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with

diffoscope_146_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 12:36:51 +0100 Source: diffoscope Architecture: source Version: 146 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Reproducible builds folks Changed-By: Chris Lamb Closes: 949598 Changes: diffos

Processing of diffoscope_146_amd64.changes

diffoscope_146_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: diffoscope_146.dsc diffoscope_146.tar.xz diffoscope_146_amd64.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org) ___ Repro