Re: Bug#894441: dpkg-buildpackage: SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH must ignore bin-nmu changelog entries. Breaks M-A:same

[Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>]

Control: severity -1 wishlist

On 04/12/2018 02:10 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 buildd.debian.org
>
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 17:43:58 +0200, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
> > On Friday, 30 March 2018 15:02:31 CEST Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > [ https://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2017/05/msg00011.html ]
> >
> > On Friday, 30 March 2018 20:15:33 CEST Sven Joachim wrote:
> > > [ https://bugs.debian.org/843773 ]
> >
> > Thanks a lot guys for pointing out that issue!
> >
> > Basically, when doing bin-nmus, we really want to bump the mtime of the
> > distributed files. Not doing so results in some backups programs (rsync...) to
> > loose updates. Other programs restarting services on libraries updates
> > (needrestart...) would also be affected.
> >
> >
> > So, during compilation:
> > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH must ignore bin-nmu changelog entries
> > because it breaks Multi-Arch:same on bin-nmu.
> >
> > During dpkg-deb (:
> > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH must *not* ignore bin-nmu changelog entries
> > because it would break software relying on files mtime.
> >
> > Doh!
> >
> > In https://bugs.debian.org/843773#75 Ian Jackson propose to introduce a
> > BUILD_DATE_EPOCH (= time of sbuild binnmu invocation) be prefered over
> > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH by dpkg-deb.
> >
> > That would work, wouldn't it?
>
> Please, see my reply at <https://bugs.debian.org/843773#132>. This is
> really a fundamental problem with binNMUs+multiarch-refcounting or how
> they are being issued. :)
Indeed.  I suspect eventually we'll make no-change sourceful uploads 
less labor intensive and binNMUs will go away, but we're not there right 
now.

Cheers,
Julien