Hi Mohd Bilal,
Mohd Bilal, on 2022-06-01:
> I've added autopkgtests for gifticlib[1].However the reprotest fails
> currently. The error log looks similar to that of nifticlib. So should I
> disable reprotest as done in nifticlib ?
>
> [1] - https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/gifticlib/
I had a quick lookup at it and I'm happy with the autopkgtest,
the way data are introduced, their relatively light weight
compared to the rest of the package, their declaration in the
copyright file (modulo the syntax error reported by lintian:
"Continuation line not in paragraph (line 13)", but that is just
a matter of glueing the copyright paragraph to the "License:"
line I believe).
On the reproducible build front, I failed to reproduce the
failure to build reproducibly (if you follow me ;). The
following output in build logs seemed suspicious to me:
/tmp/reprotest.uo7yHg/const_build_path/const_build_path/gifti_io.c: In function 'gifti_disp_lib_version':
/tmp/reprotest.uo7yHg/const_build_path/const_build_path/gifti_io.c:1701:48: warning: macro "__DATE__" might prevent reproducible builds [-Wdate-time]
1701 | printf("%s, compiled %s\n", gifti_version, __DATE__);
| ^~~~~~~~
However that might be a red herring if circumvented already by
an automated mechanism, and a diffoscope pass in salsa ci build
artifacts did not show me anything more than a few sections
shifted by a byte or so. I wouldn't disable the test before at
least trying how goes the salsa ci with the warning corrected,
to answer your question.
I think once the copyright file is fixed, and eventually fixing
a couple of lintian informational messages, the package should
be in good shape for upload.
Thanks for your contributions!
Have a nice day, :)
--
Étienne Mollier <emollier@emlwks999.eu>
Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity.
On air: Dream Theater - A View from the Top of the World
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature