Bug#1143190: reproducibility: codes_get_build_date() returns library build date

[Drew Parsons]

On 2026-07-31 16:53, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote:
> * Drew Parsons <dparsons at emerall.com> [2026-07-31 16:12]:
>> On 2026-07-31 15:58, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> eccodes upstream has seen fit to make the library build date a part 
>>>> of
>>>> their API via codes_get_build_date()
>>>> 
>>>> Debian now has an enforced policy of reproducible builds, which is
>>>> deliberately violated by eccodes through this codes_get_build_date()
>>> 
>>> Should be fixed by #1143169 or do I miss something?
>> 
>> No, 1143169 does not address this bug directly.
> 
> Can you explain why? #1143169 explicitly says that Alastair will 
> request a binNMU of eccodes which will make it reproducible (according 
> to my tests) which will allow it to migrate.

Ah I see what you mean.  I was referring to 1143162 in eccodes, and 
missing the fine print in the digits.  You mean 1143169 in ecbuild.
If ecbuild fixes the problem in eccodes and allows cfgrib to pass tests, 
then all will be fine.


>> This issue is blocking cfgrib,
>> which blocks a long chain of reverse dependencies.
> 
> I expect eccodes to migrate in 2-3 days, is there any urgency to do it 
> earlier? In that case we can ask the release team for a migration hint.

There is no grand urgency, only the desire to get pymatgen migrated back 
to testing, which is affected by this bug.
If it does migrate in 2-3 days then fine, but it's been 10 days so far, 
which is why I thought eccodes had gotten blocked by reproducibility.
But sounds like it's fixed by the ecbuild update.