On Thursday, 29 March 2018 18:43:25 CEST Julien Cristau wrote: > On 03/29/2018 06:35 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: > > (...) > > On arm64  the binnmu .buildinfo contains: > > Environment: > > (...) > > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH="1522153653" > > > > while on armhf  the binnmu .buildinfo contains: > > Environment: > > (...) > > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH="1522224789" > > > > /s/b/dpkg-buildpackage (...) > It parses debian/changelog, which is where sbuild writes the binNMU info > in the unpacked source. (...) I suppose then the best thing to do would be to have dpkg-buildpackage ignore the d/changelog entries that are tagged "binary-only=yes" when setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, right? Other options I can think of: - Have "dch --bin-nmu" keep the last date. Or whatever tool WB uses when creating the new changelog entry. - Have wanna-build set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to the last non-binnmu changelog entry. This would break package that overwrite SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH themselves. So this is a bad idea. - Prohibit bin-nmu of packages tagged Multi-Arch:same and only do full source upload for these. Eeerk :( Any tough anyone? I'll fill a bug against dpkg-dev if nobody moves. Please don't wait for me as I am sure there are many people more qualified that me in this list. By the way, shouldn't the "binary-only=yes" property in the changelog should be documented in the policy 4.4, especially if unrelated processes start using it?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.