Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> I want to understand why passing the same timestamp to all
> architectures is an inferior solution to your proposal.

This is a sensible question.  Thanks for helping to explore all the
issues.

TBH I'm not completely sure that it is, but:

Unless the timestamp is of the binnmu request, plumbing to try to get
the same timestamp will be difficult.

I'm not a fan of the idea of merely adding 1 second per binnmu.  That
would mean that making a second binnmu correctly would involve looking
in the archive to see what the previous binnmu timestamp was.  It
would also mean that the timestamps would be quite blatant lies: for
example, there would be files claiming to have been generated with
compiler X at time T, where compiler X did not exist at time T.

If the timestamp is of the binnmu request then I guess it will all
work, but the extra plumbing seems unnecessary.

> I also don't see why it's a problem that a package might only be
> rebuilt on some architectures. If only some architectures of a
> M-A:same package get a binNMU, then they are not co-installable
> anyways.

I think you're right that this isn't a problem.

Can I ask you the converse question: what same-timestamp proposal do
you think is best and why ?

Regards,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.