#archlinux-ports | Logs for 2025-08-08

Back
[00:16:57] -!- drathir_tor has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
[00:44:17] -!- drathir_tor has joined #archlinux-ports
[07:50:22] <gromit> Solskogen: FYI I retitled https://gitlab.archlinux.org as "Deletion Request" is a terminology that is mainly used for the AUR
[07:50:23] <phrik> Title: Drop from repositories (#1) · Issues · Arch Linux / Packaging / Packages / dsq · GitLab (at gitlab.archlinux.org)
[08:04:18] <Solskogen> Okay, thanks!
[12:03:34] <Solskogen> Antiz: regarding farstream, I don't think a rebuild is needed.
[12:03:56] <Solskogen> I came across the same problem when compiling on aarch64 and just adding a "-j1" to make worked fine.
[12:06:55] <Antiz> Solskogen: Ok, I thought a rebuild wouldn't hurt but thanks for the heads up.
[12:07:36] <Antiz> If it's already fixed on your side, I guess it's fine then.
[13:12:23] <Solskogen> It wouldn't hurt, it's just unnecessary :-)
[13:19:09] <Antiz> Actually, it might be an issue for reproducible builds
[13:19:49] <Antiz> Let say we reschedule a rebuild of packages to update the stats at https://reproducible.archlinux.org
[13:19:50] <phrik> Title: Arch Linux Reproducible Status (at reproducible.archlinux.org)
[13:21:33] <Antiz> Then the package would needlessly fail to build (because the fixing changes never made it to a release pushed to the repo) and would be wrongly reported as non-reproducible.
[13:23:29] <Antiz> So yeah, rebuilding it is *most likely* unnecessary, but there are (unlikely, but possible) cases where it would be an issue. So I'll probably rebuild it anyway, better safe than sorry I guess 😅
[13:25:33] <Antiz> Generally speaking, anyone that would try to reproduce the package right now wouldn't it be able to do so, which is not ideal.