Some Debian package upgrades are corrupting rsync "quick check" backups

Mon Jan 30 13:25:51 UTC 2017

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:10:12PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > Would reproducible-builds at lists.alioth.debian.org be the correct mailing
> > list to discuss this?

the debian-buildd list or a bug against sbuild might be more
appropriate…

(the sbuild maintainer reads the above list which has been cc:ed so he
should be able to comment…)

> Not really, because that has been done in sbuild since long before the
> reproducible builds project became active: 0.62.2-1, Tue, 05 Apr 2011:
>     - Improve binNMU handling to permit binNMUs for multiarch packages
>       (Closes: #620112).  Currently, binary NMUs use the current date
>       in the new changelog entry, but co-installable packages require
>       an identical changelog.  To avoid this, take the date from the
>       previous changelog entry to ensure the same date for all binNMUs.
>       Thanks to Anders Kaseorg for this patch.
> 
> And, incidentally, this has been kind of reverted in 0.73.0-1 (Sat, 24
> Dec 2016) after a fairly long and annoying discussion in debian-devel:
>   * For binNMUs, instead of copying the timestamp of the last changelog entry,
>     generate a new one (closes: #843773)

so, two questions: 

a.) has been fixed, so that no new occurrances of this problem will occur?
b.) if thats the case, shall we scan all packages in sid for files which
have the same timestamp+filename but different checksums and ask for
binNMUs of those packages?

thinking about b.) debian-release at l.d.o might be the right list for
this…

-- 
cheers,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/reproducible-builds/attachments/20170130/0ccbe4c7/attachment.sig>