Uploads with conflicting buildinfo filenames

[Holger Levsen]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:39:28PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> And that definition has violated some of our design and we never really
> followed up on this which is partly why we are where we are now. Which
> is mostly a great place in regards .buidlinfo files.
> 
> My biggest grief with .buildinfo files currently are rather #763822 and #929397 now, btw.

re: hat definition has violated some of our design:

eg I really think the checksum of the installed dependencies should
be listed in the .buildinfo files (even though I understand why this
is not that easy and thus I've for now given up on wanting this.)

Another thing is not listing some installed packages.

There might be more...



-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

Surely we can discuss whether 5 or 15 is the bigger integer, however this won't
change the facts. #climatechange. (John Oliver)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/attachments/20250627/a7daefe2/attachment.sig>