Comment 21 for bug 1990856
Revision history for this message
| Julian Andres Klode (juliank) wrote | #21 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
Thank you SRU bot. I'll mark the bug as verified for jammy.
As explained before, the regression in debuerreotype is expected, the change in extraction order (which is now more deterministic) is causing a timestamp skew in the result vs what was calculated as expected back then, and the reference tarball is operated by a third party, and we do not use debuerreotype, so we should just ignore the regression.