Hi, Quoting Wookey (2026-04-15 20:59:31) > On 2026-04-15 16:34 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > >Hi Simon, > > > >On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 04:05:27PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Couldn't we use the timestamp of the last source upload instead? > >> > >> That is, whatever code set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH based on debian/changelog > >> timestamps has to be modified. Instead of using the timestamp of the > >> most recent entry, have it skip over all binNMU entries to find the > >> timestamp of the most recent non-binNMU entry. > > > >That's an earlier solution. It was discarded, because it broke Ian's > >backup system. > > Which Ian are we talking about here (or is there a backup package in debian called 'Ian's backup system')? > Does this issue affect more people than 'Ian'? > > Why does it break when binNMUs are built to (internally) match the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH? > > Should a backup system not be able to cope with new files that have > old dates in them (are the timestamps of the debs themselves set to > the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH?) > > Essentially I am wondering if perhaps this backup system should be > fixed, rather than the build systems changed? > > Perhaps this has all been discussed already somewhere, and there is a > good reason why this option has not been included in the solution-set? If > so, do you have a pointer? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=843773 Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature