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: 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

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

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk writes: > This is not about experimenting for raising the bar in the future. > This is about the reproducible builds team not using policy as a stick > for claiming a bar higher than what policy actually defines. > Is it really allowed to claim that a package is

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:00:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > Future policy versions might change this definition, but whatever latest > > policy states has to be the definition used by both packages and the > > reproducible builds team. > > >

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:00:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > This in absolutely no way constrains the reproducible build team from > working on raising the bar in the future, just as the absence of this > language from Policy did not prevent them from starting to work on this > problem

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Hello, On Tue, Aug 15 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > >> Future policy versions might change this definition, but whatever >> latest policy states has to be the definition used by both packages >> and the reproducible builds team. > >> Another example is that

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk writes: > Future policy versions might change this definition, but whatever latest > policy states has to be the definition used by both packages and the > reproducible builds team. > Another example is that a package that is reproducible according to the > policy

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:05:29PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Is identical building on any kernel required (and tested)? no and no. it's only required that the results is reproducible, that is bit by bit identical… > Will every reproducible package in buster build identical on the >

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:09:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs > > > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official > > > definition of reproducibility in policy states that this is not required > > > for a

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs > > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official > > definition of reproducibility in policy states

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk writes: > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official > definition of reproducibility in policy states that this is not required > for a package to be reproducible. I believe

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:34:35 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst > index 127b125..6e32870 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > @@ -661,6 +661,28 @@ particularly complex or unintuitive source layout or > build system

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 03:34:35PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Here is an updated patch addressing these. I reworded it to use > 'recommended' and changed the tone to better suit policy. > > Thank you Ximin, Russ and Johannes! > > > "precisification" -> "more precise version" > > Our

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, Aug 12 2017, Ximin Luo wrote: > Thanks! Seconded. Just to be clear, we are waiting on one more second for the version that refers to build and target architecture. -- Sean Whitton ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Sean Whitton: > [..] > > Here is an updated patch addressing these. I reworded it to use > 'recommended' and changed the tone to better suit policy. > > Thank you Ximin, Russ and Johannes! > >> "precisification" -> "more precise version" > > Our definition is not actually a /version/ of the >

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 01:18:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > +Packages are encouraged to produce bit-for-bit identical binary packages > > even > > +if most environment variables and build paths are varied. This is > > technically > > +more difficult at the time of writing, but it is

Re: Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Ximin Luo writes: > To echo dkg and others' comments, it would be nice if we could add here: > +Packages are encouraged to produce bit-for-bit identical binary packages even > +if most environment variables and build paths are varied. This is technically > +more difficult