Re: [fis-gtm] "action needed" items
Hi Amul,
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:59:59AM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On 03/31/16 06:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:17:52PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
> >>FIS released GT.M V6.3-000 yesterday and I am in the process of updating the
> >>Debian package. Since I have the spare cycles, I want to address a few of
> >>the "action needed" items listed on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fis-gtm
> >Thanks for keeping the packages up to date.
> [amul:2] After the last round of updates, we instituted a few changes
> internally to ensure that we can ship the Debian package ASAP. Can you look
> over my recent commit and make any necessary changes? Also, when do can we
> push the new version into unstable?
Just uploaded. Will be in unstable after the next mirror sync.
The only thing I'd recommend to test is the following patch:
$ git diff
diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index cef9eff..5415aa0 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ BINPKG := $(shell awk '/Package:.*[0-9]/{print $$2;}' debian/control)
GTM_INSTALL_DIR := lib/$(MARCH)/fis-gtm/$(UAPIDIR)
LOCAL_GTM_INSTALL_DIR := $(CURDIR)/debian/$(BINPKG)/usr/$(GTM_INSTALL_DIR)
+export DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS = hardening=+all
+
%:
dh $@ --parallel
This should reduce the number of lintian issues about hardening (when
using lintian with info severity).
> >>The above files are FIS GT.M database files generated during the build.
> >>These databases hold the online help for FIS GT.M executables. Database
> >>files won't be the same due to time related information in the block
> >>headers. So I need to exclude these files from being checked.
> >I wonder whether there would be any sensible chance to determine the
> >time stamp - may be for instance to the time stamp of the changelog.
> >Does GT.M provide any such functionality?
>
> [amul:2] I don't know of such a functionality. :(
Could you contact upstream about adding such a feature. If I would
design such a system I think this is kind of an essential feature for
instance if you want to design a test suite to be able to rely on a
defined state. BTW, what about creating a test suite that could be run
at build time as well as autopkgtest.
> >I do not think that you can exclude any files from beeing checked. I'd
> >recommend talking with upstream whether any fixed time setting would be
> >possible or the reproducible builds team whether they know any way to
> >create a fake-system-time.
>
> [amul:2] By upstream, do you mean FIS GT.M developers?
Yes, that's the usual Debian slang.
> There is a library
> libfaketime (https://github.com/wolfcw/libfaketime) that might help in this.
> I'll let you know.
That would be nice.
> >>-- build log check warning --
> >I admit I never cared about this and thus can't comment on this.
> [amul:2] Ok, I'll happily ignore this for now. :)
>
> As always, thanks for you help!
You are welcome
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: