Holger Levsen: > On Montag, 30. März 2015, Paul Wise wrote: > > These seem like FTBFS that should be reported, so the package > > maintainers patch out usage of the macros, especially as the plan was > > to enable warnings for them by default eventually. > > yes, they should be reported. thats why they are listed on > https://reproducible.debian.net/issues/unstable/timestamps_from_cpp_macros_issue.html > > There is *no* need to list them on tracker.d.o, in fact, I consider this > *harmful*: once you start showing false negatives, people are less likely to > believe the results, thus people start to mentally ignore them. > > Please dont make this happen. > > > How can we show FTBFS that do need to be reported but not show FTBFS > > that don't need to be reported? > > Please only show reliable results from reproducible.d.n on tracker.d.o - ftbfs > bugs are not reliable. Please exclude them. > > (What's needed to exclude them would be to include logic from > reproducible.debian.net which I dont consider sensible.) As dpkg-buildpackage now outputs `-Wdate-time` instead of `-Werror=date-time` in the reproducible toolchain, I believe the above to be less an issue. -- Lunar .''`. lunar@debian.org : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism `. `'` `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature