On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 at 23:32, Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2023-01-15 at 22:53 +0100, roberto.foglietta@linuxteam.org
> wrote:
> > From: "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com>
> >
> > 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 <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com>
> > ---
>
> 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?