Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: Oppose

Bill Allombert writes: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:14:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> If you have specific wording suggestions that you believe would bring >> this Policy requirement closer in line with what we're already doing in >> the project (and which has gotten us

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: Oppose

Just to be completely, 100% clear: I will not be responding further to this line of argument in this bug. If you disagree with my decision as a project delegate, I've spelled out your possible next steps under Debian's governance process. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Russ Allbery: > Ximin Luo writes: > >> Fair enough. I actually spotted that but thought it was better to get >> "something" into Policy rather than nitpick. I guess other people were >> thinking similar things. Well, lesson learnt, I will be more forceful >> next time. >

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Bill Allombert writes: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:36:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Note that, for most developers, this is pretty much equivalent to the >> current situation with FTBFS on, say, s390 architectures. Or even >> issues with running under whichever init

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:36:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Note that, for most developers, this is pretty much equivalent to the > current situation with FTBFS on, say, s390 architectures. Or even issues > with running under whichever init system is not the one the maintainer > personally

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Bill Allombert: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 07:49:55PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: >> Also what you are saying ("a package that is reproducible according to the >> policy definition must not show up as non-reproducible in tracker/DDPO based >> on results from the reproducible infrastructure") doesnt

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: Oppose

Adrian Bunk writes: > I hereby oppose the addition of this to policy. > It is not true that this would be "Debian's precisification" of > reproducible builds. > The definition does not match any past, present or future practice in > Debian. > Including the people who want this

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:43:00PM +, Ximin Luo wrote: > Adrian Bunk: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:37:00AM +, Ximin Luo wrote: > >> [..] > >> > >> Fair enough. I actually spotted that but thought it was better to get > >> "something" into Policy rather than nitpick. I guess other people

GCC build-path patch getting blocked

Hi list, It looks like the GCC reviewer that looked at my patch this time around, really doesn't like environment variables. They seem to be happy to support the variable (including the syntax) as a command-line flag however. The original patch fixed ~1800 packages, which were unreproducible

Re: More info about nondeterminism_added_by_pyqt5_pyrcc5

Federico Brega: > Hello, > > I'm packaging an application making use of pyrcc5 and I noticed the > nondeterminism it adds. > I see[1] that this is currently description is not correct. > You can see that pyrcc5 uses QHash, which is made to avoid algorithmic > complexity attacks[2] > introducing a

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:24:07AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, 11:02 p.m. Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Tracker: > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/hsqldb1.8.0 > > "Does not build reproducibly during testing" > > And indeed it's not reproducible according to

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, 11:02 p.m. Adrian Bunk wrote: > Tracker: > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/hsqldb1.8.0 > "Does not build reproducibly during testing" > And indeed it's not reproducible according to policy: it's storing the build user at the very least. > > Let's look at