Bug#843867: pbuilder: allow passing the timestamp for the new changelog entry for binNMUs

Mattia Rizzolo mattia at mapreri.org
Thu Nov 10 11:31:47 UTC 2016


On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, 12:20 p.m. Johannes Schauer, <josch at debian.org> wrote:

> Quoting James Clarke (2016-11-10 09:12:50)
> > > In pbuilder's case the date of a binNMU is just `date -R` when the
> command
> > > runs, thus we don't have the same problem as described there.
> > >
> > > I'm following that discussion to see what it'll lead to, but I'm
> > > unconvinced that we need to mangle the date like you suggest.
> Especially
> > > your last email that talks about m-a:same potential troubles leaves me
> > > unbought, as ma:same is afaik only avout file contents, surely not file
> > > metadata (timestamps) (which would be different anyway for the "last
> > > timestamp+1sec" as you said?!).
> >
> > Well if SDE varies, binaries, manpages etc can end up having different
> > contents...
>
> and then packages with the same binNMU number will not be co-installable
> anymore if they share a file that ends up having different content because
> of
> S_D_E.
>

I argue that should not be in a ma:same package.

Reproducible manages and such only exist since 1 year or so, ma:same exists
since a lot before and before that manages weren't the same.

Also, imho ma:same packages should be coinstallable regardless of the
number of binNMUs that happened differently across archs (modulo dpkg not
being happy, but your idea discards that too).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pbuilder-maint/attachments/20161110/5b406911/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Pbuilder-maint mailing list