[buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

[Johannes Schauer]

Hi,

Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2016-12-01 16:24:16)
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the
> > "nmu" command of wanna-build to also add an option that allows setting a
> > timestamp, or even let wanna-build generate that timestamp itself (from the
> > time it processes the "nmu" command) and then pass it to sbuild via a
> > not-yet-existing --binNMU-timestamp option?
> 
> Wanna-build has a "State-Change" date:
> 
> wouter at wuiet:~$ wanna-build -A powerpc --info nbd
> nbd:
>   Package             : nbd
>   Version             : 1:3.14-4
>   Builder             : buildd_powerpc-porpora
>   State               : Installed
>   Section             : admin
>   Priority            : source
>   Installed-Version   : 1:3.14-4
>   Previous-State      : Uploaded
>   State-Change        : 2016-11-21 23:13:18.744533
>   Build-time          : 9255
>   CalculatedPri       : 50
>   component           : main
>   Distribution        : sid
>   Notes               : out-of-date
>   Old-Failed          : -------------------- 1:2.9.23-1 --------------------
>     fails test suite
>   State-Days          : 9
>   State-Time          : 835808
>   Success-build-time  : 366
> 
> Why not use that?

I don't know wanna-build but this timestamp seems to be architecture specific
(I see "powerpc" in your paste above)?

Instead, sbuild should be called with the same input timestamp on all
architectures when an nmu is to be built.

Thanks!

cheers, josch
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/attachments/20161201/05dbd2e1/attachment.sig>