[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#900837: marked as done (release.debian.org: Mass-rebuild of packages for reproducible builds)

Your message dated Fri, 15 Aug 2025 11:34:33 +0000
with message-id <aJ8bSSWpRxKAlT3G@layer-acht.org>
and subject line mass rebuilds have happened
has caused the Debian Bug report #900837,
regarding release.debian.org: Mass-rebuild of packages for reproducible builds
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
900837: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=900837
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Tags: moreinfo
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: toolchain
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org

Hi,

Holger recently started a thread on debian-devel regarding packages
which may need to be rebuilt in order that buster is reproducible:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/05/thrd2.html#00499

Continued here:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/06/threads.html#00007

As this is now the the second or third time this issue has slipped our
mind (!) when attempting to enumerate all of our big "blocker issues",
I'm filing this issue.

Note that this is a placeholder and way to centralise discussion of
the issue as well as having a canonical location to link to, rather
than it being an explicit request for action right now.

If you believe this bug is assigned to the wrong package, feel free
to reassign it elsewhere.


Best wishes,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
hi,

actually I have addressed this bug by doing >3900 NMUs with no source changes
except incrementing d/changelog, so I'm closing this bug now as
all packages in the archive have been build with recent dpkg, except for a
very few ones which are now on our radar via reproduce.debian.net:

https://reproduce.debian.net/all/stats/#old-dpkg-(%3C1.19.0,-upload-needed)
https://reproduce.debian.net/armel/stats/#old-dpkg-(%3C1.19.0,-binNMU-needed)
https://reproduce.debian.net/ppc64el/stats/#old-dpkg-(%3C1.19.0,-binNMU-needed)

So this is *one* arch:all package which needs a sourceful upload, the others
could probably be binNMUed or whatever is appropriate, forky development
just has begun. (and we really also only see this on these two archs, nowhere
else.)

So for the record, these were the months were I did mass NMUs with no source changes:

Dec 2020: 540 uploads
Jan 2021: 2942 uploads
Jun 2022: 364 uploads
May 2022: 37 uploads

So I guess end of January 2021 my name was on almost 10% of the source packages
in unstable. \o/ m( :)


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

It ain't no revolution, just because you can dance to it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: