Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Let's answer that one, and if the answer is "lets drop binNMUs", then we can > work towards source-based auto-NMUs being at least as easy to use/trigger as > binNMUs currently are. I guess automated source-NMUs would be useful

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

2015-09-27 17:54 GMT+02:00 Paul Wise : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> Let's answer that one, and if the answer is "lets drop binNMUs", then we can >> work towards source-based auto-NMUs being at least as easy to use/trigger as >> binNMUs

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:56:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > But once we are able to trigger a rebuild with sourceful NMUs, as > > Ubuntu does, binNMUs will hopefully be a thing of the past. > > Amusingly, the way we do it in

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Sat, 2015-09-26 at 14:35 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:56:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > But once we are able to trigger a rebuild with sourceful NMUs, as > > > Ubuntu does, binNMUs will

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:29:46AM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Yes, but that would push complexity to the client side for no > > particularly good reason. > > The “client” here is dak, and the info could be pushed to UDD, > if it isn’t

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > But once we are able to trigger a rebuild with sourceful NMUs, as > Ubuntu does, binNMUs will hopefully be a thing of the past. Amusingly, the way we do it in Ubuntu is a huge hassle in some cases, and at least some of us would

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

Hi, On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:56:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > But once we are able to trigger a rebuild with sourceful NMUs, as > > Ubuntu does, binNMUs will hopefully be a thing of the past. > > Amusingly, the way we do it

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: > You don't appreciate the beauty of simplicity. FOR binNMUs: * I do appreciate not triggering a libreoffice rebuild on the slow arches when a binNMU is required on amd64. AGAINST binNMUs: * I do appreciate multiarch not being broken by binNMU'd

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Yes, but that would push complexity to the client side for no > particularly good reason. The “client” here is dak, and the info could be pushed to UDD, if it isn’t already (didn’t check). That’s a one-off thing. bye, //mirabilos -- tarent

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:22:28PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes: > > > Everything needed to remedy that would be to not do so, and include the > > source to a binNMU with its upload instead. > > No. The entire delta between the source in the archive and >

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

Wouter Verhelst debian.org> writes: > Everything needed to remedy that would be to not do so, and include the > source to a binNMU with its upload instead. No. The entire delta between the source in the archive and the .deb generated from a binNMU upload is contained in the .changes file as

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

Simon McVittie: > On 17/09/15 21:53, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Ok. It may be worth to change the tool to do source-only uploads instead > > (which, combined with the Arch: all autobuilder, should yield the > > same result). > > BinNMUs don't upload any source at all. They instruct the autobuilders

binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

Hello. I see "serious" bug reports asking for packages to drop "dh_installdocs --link-doc" (see Bug #799316 for an example). However, binNMUs break the reproducibility of the packages being NMUed, since apparently the requirement of providing the *exact* source code that was used for the *.deb

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

BTW: We *do* have an "Architecture: all" autobuilder. (Just in case lack of it was an argument in favour of current practice).

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On 2015-09-17 22:02, Santiago Vila wrote: > Hello. > Hi, > I see "serious" bug reports asking for packages to drop > "dh_installdocs --link-doc" (see Bug #799316 for an example). > To clarify (for those who haven't read the bug): I requested that --link-doc between arch:any AND arch:all

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:26:11PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > Again, not saying it could not be changed, but binNMUs are used fairly > often. Having to download the source code, add a changelog entry and > sign the result would make any non-trivial transition a living hell. There's no reason

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On 17/09/15 21:53, Santiago Vila wrote: > Ok. It may be worth to change the tool to do source-only uploads instead > (which, combined with the Arch: all autobuilder, should yield the > same result). BinNMUs don't upload any source at all. They instruct the autobuilders to run sbuild with some

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

[ Dropping cc and moving to devel only ]. On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:26:11PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > binNMUs are much more lightweight than source-full NMUs. Notably: > > * They are not subject to the NMU policy which involves delays >- These are certainly politics that could be

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 22:53:15 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Well, from the point of view of build-reproducibility, what is broken is the > whole binNMU idea. > Well, not at all... Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

+++ Santiago Vila [2015-09-17 22:53 +0200]: > [ Dropping cc and moving to devel only ]. > > > Well, from the point of view of build-reproducibility, what is broken is the > whole binNMU idea. It also causes a lot of trouble for multiarch. To be co-installable libraries need to have exactly the

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On 17 September 2015 at 22:29, Wookey wrote: > +++ Santiago Vila [2015-09-17 22:53 +0200]: >> [ Dropping cc and moving to devel only ]. >> >> >> Well, from the point of view of build-reproducibility, what is broken is the >> whole binNMU idea. > > It also causes a lot of