Am / On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 01:03:34 +0100 schrieb / wrote Daniel Leidert <dleidert@debian.org>: > The contents of data.tar.xz in both packages are the > same, they only seem to have different timestamps, which > I find ok. Still the tarball differs in size in both > packages. That doesn't make much sense to me. The files > in both packages are actually the same except for the > modification time. I wouldn't call this "unreproducible". I just learned that tar archives with the same content have different sizes when the metadata of the included files (especially the timestamps) differ. So I looked into both data.tar.xz and found that in the one from control the timestamps of the copied rdoc template files are the same as the ones of the original files in /usr/lib/ruby/2.7.0/rdoc/generator/template/...: mostly 1. Okt. 2020, 14:15 But in the data.tar.xz from the experiment-1 run some of them have the timestamp of: 8. March 2021, 13:37 for example: /usr/share/doc/webgen/rdoc/js/search.js /usr/share/doc/webgen/rdoc/js/darkfish.js and all image-files in: /usr/share/doc/webgen/rdoc/images/ So the question would be: How can we assure that rdoc preserves the timestamps of copied template-files while building the documentation in build-doc, or at least, that these timestamp are the same on each build-run? Another thing I'm wondering about is the fact that the copied truetype-fonts in the packages exist only in compressed format as ttf.gz. I know that they are copied by rdoc to build-doc uncompressed ttf's. So, what compressed them? So: Open questions everywhere! Klaumi ----- Klaumi Klingsporn mail: klaumikli@gmx.de web: www.klaumikli.de
Attachment:
pgpVk4CkDVS7V.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP