[Git][reproducible-builds/reproducible-website][master] docs: history: Fix more broken links to point to wiki.debian.org.

[Vagrant Cascadian (@vagrant)]

Vagrant Cascadian pushed to branch master at Reproducible Builds / reproducible-website


Commits:
905a28d2 by Vagrant Cascadian at 2023-08-02T11:56:56-07:00
docs: history: Fix more broken links to point to wiki.debian.org.

- - - - -


1 changed file:

- _docs/history.md


Changes:

=====================================
_docs/history.md
=====================================
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ path. 24% of 5240 source packages were identified as reproducible. The
 script](https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds?action=recall&rev=83#Crude_bash_script_to_compare_two_binary_packages)
 was written to help reviewing differences.
 
-A [second mass rebuild](ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20140126)
+A [second mass rebuild](https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20140126)
 was made before the [presentation in the distro devroom at FOSDEM'14](https://fosdem.org/2014/schedule/event/reproducibledebian/).
 It used a slightly different approach regarding build paths and had
 `binutils` built in deterministic mode. 67% of 6887 source
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ option which allows to map the current directory to a canonical one in
 what gets recorded. But compiler options get written to debug file as
 well. So it has to be doubled with `-gno-record-gcc-switches` to be
 used for reproducibility. The [first large scale
-rebuild](ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20130907) has proven that
+rebuild](https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20130907) has proven that
 it was also hard to determine what the actual build path has been
 accurately.
 
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ build. Unfortunately, `gcc` write debug strings in a *hashtable*.
 the result is still unreproducible. Adding this feature to `debugedit`
 looked difficult. We can still make the approach work by passing
 `-fno-merge-debug-strings` but this is space expensive. The [second
-large scale rebuild](ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20140126) used
+large scale rebuild](https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20140126) used
 the latter approach. It was still difficult to guess the initial build
 path properly. Stéphane Glondu was the first to [suggest to using a
 canonical build
@@ -292,9 +292,9 @@ Policy, 4.1.0.
 
 ## Archive wide rebuilds
 
-*  [2013-09-07](ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20130907) by David Suárez. 24% of 5240 source packages reproducible. Variations: time, build path.
-*  [2014-01-26](ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20140126) by David Suárez. 67% of 6887 source packages reproducible. Variations: time, build path.
-*  [2014-09-19](ReproducibleBuilds/RebuildCore20140919) by Lunar, 30% of 172 source core packages reproducible. Variations: time, file order.
+*  [2013-09-07](https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20130907) by David Suárez. 24% of 5240 source packages reproducible. Variations: time, build path.
+*  [2014-01-26](https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/Rebuild20140126) by David Suárez. 67% of 6887 source packages reproducible. Variations: time, build path.
+*  [2014-09-19](https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/RebuildCore20140919) by Lunar, 30% of 172 source core packages reproducible. Variations: time, file order.
 *  [Updated daily since 2014-09-28](https://reproducible.debian.net/userContent/reproducible.html) by jenkins.debian.net. On 2014-11-11, 13213 (61.4%) out of 21448 packages are reproducible.
 
 ## Publicity



View it on GitLab: https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/-/commit/905a28d27c157ed38f5edd22a70e7deb8f17592c

-- 
View it on GitLab: https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/-/commit/905a28d27c157ed38f5edd22a70e7deb8f17592c
You're receiving this email because of your account on salsa.debian.org.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-commits/attachments/20230802/f548fbf7/attachment.htm>