Bug#1030855: ring_20230206.0~ds1-2_amd64-buildd.changes REJECTED

[Aurelien Jarno]

Hi,

On 2023-02-09 09:41, Amin Bandali wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Aurelien Jarno writes:
> 
> > Source: ring
> > Version: 20230206.0~ds1-2
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > On 2023-02-08 08:40, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> >> jami_20230206.0~ds1-2_amd64.deb: has 5 file(s) with a timestamp too far in th=
> >> e past:
> >>   usr/share/applications/jami.desktop (Thu Jan  1 00:00:01 1970)  usr/share/i=
> >> cons/hicolor/scalable/apps/jami.svg (Thu Jan  1 00:00:01 1970)  usr/share/jam=
> >> i/jami.desktop (Thu Jan  1 00:00:01 1970)  usr/share/metainfo/jami.appdata.xm=
> >> l (Thu Jan  1 00:00:01 1970)  usr/share/pixmaps/jami.xpm (Thu Jan  1 00:00:01=
> >>  1970)
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> =3D=3D=3D
> >> 
> >> Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
> >> your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
> >> concerns.

Please note I am only the messenger here, I am just forwarding a mail
(in the BTS so that there is a trace) from Debian FTP Masters
<ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org> telling that your package has been
rejected from the archive. I have added them in Cc so they can provide
an answer to your question.

> Yes please, I'd like to understand why timestamps in the far past are
> a 'serious' bug and warrant a rejection.  Upstream Jami project has

The serious severity of the bug is because your source package has been
rejected by Debian FTP Masters, and thus the source and binaries are not
in sync, not the timestamp issue.

> worked on making various aspects of the release and build processes of
> Jami reproducible over the years, including Jami's release tarballs.
> The release tarballs are generated with a few additional options[1] to
> aide reproducibility, including setting '--mtime=@1' to use the epoch
> as the timestamp for all the files included in the release tarballs.
> This is quite close to the archive recommendations[2] by the
> reproducible builds project.
> 
> So, why would this be considered an issue?
> 

This is a question to be answered by Debian FTP Masters.

Regards
Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien at aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net