Proposal for making Multi-Arch:same binNMU-safe

[Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/reproducible-builds/attachments/20260415/583cd707/attachment.sig>