Re: Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note

["Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@gmail.com>]

(got a "550 5.6.0 improper use of 8-bit data in message header", 
resending without S-MIME signature, sorry for the duplicate)

Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:

> I've improve it like this now:
>
> $ git log -p -1
> commit 172f203eab628bd5df0106b33153dc428d12dd5c
> Author: Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org>
> Date:   Tue Jan 21 18:07:14 2020 +0100
>
>     improve note on wireguard
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org>
>
> diff --git a/packages.yml b/packages.yml
> index 748c9dda..39266770 100644
> --- a/packages.yml
> +++ b/packages.yml
> @@ -27904,7 +27904,8 @@ wipe:
>  wireguard:
>    version: 0.0.20171221-2
>    comments: |
> -    Curious ordering of every - see https://sources.debian.org/src/wireguard/0.0.20171221-2/src/tools/show.c/#L173-L179
> +    Unreproducible on 32bit archs only
> +    might be related to https://sources.debian.org/src/wireguard/0.0.20171221-2/src/tools/show.c/#L173-L179

Unfortunately, this message is still non-ideal, because it contains a 
dead link. According to the git history at 
https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-tools/tree/src/show.c?id=9207dec08fdf6d1ea1f740bd98cf122603e919bd 
(i.e. at approximately the same date), the highlighted region matches 
the whole body of the "every()" function. Wouldn't it make more sense to 
refer to it instead of giving a dead link?

P.S. for me, it is still not obvious how this function, or whatever gets 
inlined into it, would lead to a non-reproducible build.

--
Alexander E. Patrakov