diffoscope_146~bpo10+1_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
diffoscope_146~bpo10+1.dsc
diffoscope_146~bpo10+1.tar.xz
diffoscope_146~bpo10+1_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:15:28 +0200
Source: diffoscope
Architecture: source
Version: 146~bpo10+1
Distribution: buster-backports
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Reproducible builds folks
Changed-By: Mattia Rizzolo
Closes: 949
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 02:49:46PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2020-05-17, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-05-16 at 22:58 +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> >> My gut feeling is that this is the avenue we want to explore. Having a
> >> separate mechanism to capture this build-specific metadata w
On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 11:12 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I know this has been linked in multiple places, but I'll link it
> again:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1845159
> there has also been a relevant thread in debian-devel a few months
> back, spawned off the debian/.build th
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 09:40:19PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Re-reading the above thread, I now think that debhelper/dpkg-dev is the
> wrong layer to be implementing this and that we want it in the hooks or
> config for the build system in use; launchpad, sbuild, pbuilder etc.
>
[…]
>
> So, I wou
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package diffoscope
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
# https://bts-link-team.pages.debian.net/bts-link/
#
user debian-bts-l...@lists.debian.org
# remote status report for #960814 (http://bugs.debian.org/96081
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> #
> # bts-link upstream status pull for source package diffoscope
> # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
> # https://bts-link-team.pages.debian.net/bts-link/
> #
> user debian-bts-l...@lists.debian.org
Sett
On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 20:53 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> But so, do you think the first step lies in pbuilder/sbuild to decide an
> interface for the package maintainers to use, or for the buildd managers
> (wanna-build/buildd and launchpad) to decide on an interface that
> sbuild needs to provi
