On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 at 23:32, Florian Bezdeka wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-01-15 at 22:53 +0100, roberto.foglietta@linuxteam.org > wrote: > > From: "Roberto A. Foglietta" > > > > suggested changes for reproducibility patchset > > > > WARNING: eval-image-1.0-r0 do_rootfs_finalize: modified timestamp (1673628837) of 3 files for image reproducibly > > List of files modified could be found here: ./build/tmp/deploy/images/debx86/files.modified_timestamps > > > > Can't follow. Patches / Commits need proper description (= commit > message). I guess you fixed a warning, but the warning itself (= list > of modified files) was inside the mentioned file, so we have to guess > what changed? > Do not worry, I will do a proper patch when your changes will be included into ilbers/next - this is just a suggestion for Felix @Felix There is no reason to show a warning of long N files but just a summary with the name of the file to check. Please forget the v6 because it got out prematurely. I just sent the v7. Keep in consideration that in my building after the image finalize, do_install_imager_deps runs and mess-up things. It is something that I need to investigate. > > > > v.6: the 1st part of the warning shows up each time the epoch is used > > while the 2nd line appears only when some files has been touched > > This allows the user to know the current situation aboat epoch. > > Version information does not belong here. See below. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto A. Foglietta > > --- > > Comments like changes between versions of your patches should be > mentioned here. Not inside the commit message. > Ok, it seems weird to me but it probably is a standard that automatic software needs. Is that right?