On 10/20/20 10:13 AM, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > first: many thanks for uploading a fixed bash package! > > second: the rest of this mail is not about bash anymore, so still mailing the > bug is kind of wrong. I'm doing it anyway to keep references intact. (Feel > free to just reply to the r-b-bugs list if you think thats better. or clone > and reassign, dunno?) > > so, about libgcc and the essential set... > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:54:18AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >>>>> So, there are now only two packages in the Essential set that are >>>>> unreproducible. I plan to work on the other package (Perl) shortly, >>>>> but having Bash fixed in the archive itself would be very welcome >>>>> and motivating withal. >>>> really? No libgcc in the essential set? yes, it would be motivating if you >>>> would address the GCC issues upstream and not keeping a set of local >>>> patches. > > about gcc: > > a.) I don't think *we* (r-b) have local GCC/libgcc patches since 2018, instead > we are just using the gcc packages from Debian. We certainly have nothing > not in our repo (because it's been empty for a while, including all > of 2020). > If "we" have them in Debian, I'd very much appreciate a quick > pointer which of the > https://sources.debian.org/src/gcc-10/10.2.0-15/debian/patches/ > contain patches from us we should upstream? > > b.) or am I/we miss something else?
I'm talking about https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2017-July/479571.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2017-August/480573.html submitted upstream by Ximin Luo, not accepted in this form, and not part of the Debian package either. In the past the r-b effort used to build their own compiler with a bunch of patches. Is this still the case? > about essential: > > maybe/probably we (well, you and Chris) have been talking about different > essential sets or definitions, because > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/bullseye/amd64/pkg_set_essential.html > does not contain GCC, even the build-essential pkg_set doesnt contain it, > only > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/bullseye/amd64/pkg_set_build-essential-depends.html, > which might be a bug in how we calculate the pkg sets... > > but then, I think the calculation is right, see the one line at > https://salsa.debian.org/qa/jenkins.debian.net/-/blob/master/bin/reproducible_create_meta_pkg_sets.sh#L155 > which considers all binary packages which set "Essential: yes" (and then > looks up > the source package that binary is coming from.) Or am I wrong? > >>> Unfortunately I don't understand the hostility of this reply or how >>> it is relevant to Bash. >> Hostility? You started speaking about "motivation" here. If you need that, >> fine. But then why demotivate others... > > I'm very sorry this discussion arrived here. And that's all I'm going to say > about those 4 lines, except that we surely don't want to demotivate anyone. > I'm also > sure Chris feels this way and regrets that his words caused "harm" on you. > > (and i'm not sure about the quotes around harm, demotivation is surely harm > noone wants.) > >> ... by keeping local patches and not working >> on upstreaming those? It's now years that the reproducible builds project >> doesn't address some of it's more fundamental issue with compilers. > > To repeat very clearly: we (*) are not aware which patches you are talking > about > and we would really appreciate pointers. And we surely want to upstream > everything we do. And we very much appreciate help. (And reminders if needed.) > > (*) I've asked around.. :) > > And we, I, want everyone to be happy and motivated. And if we fail, we like > to > know. > > Last and not least: thanks for your time, support and all the work you put > into > maintaining these important packages! I very much hope together we can fix all > the bugs which annoy us! Seriosly. > >