On 4/23/19 9:28 AM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 02:17:53PM -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote: >>> It might be non-obvious from where those copies are coming from, or IOW >>> that the hashes of these sources are part of the build instructions. >> I don't think that should be specified in the definition. >> It shouldn't matter how you got copies, as long as you have them. >> Having hashes of sources in the build instructions can be a useful >> implementation >> approach, but I don't think those should be required either (if you have the >> actual >> sources, there's no particular reason to require the hashes as well). > > agreed to all of that. but then I wouldnt mention 'copies'... (because > else it implies all those questions mentioned above.) > >> Fair point. I think removing that word "both" is good enough. > > yup > >> New version of the summary motivation is: >> >> Reproducible builds help counter unintentional errors and malicious builds. > > I think I'd like to see a full patch... else it's much harder to > review.. > >> Fair point, and it's probably unnecessary to mention either "set" or "sets". >> Also, I don't think the project is developing all the tools that could be >> useful. > > *nods* > >> How about this as a summary description of the project?: >> >> The reproducible builds project is developing tools and recommended >> software development practices to enable all builds to be reproducible. >> >> Again, the goal is to maximize clarity for newcomers. > > again, I think I'd like to see a full patch... :) > > & thanks as well! Done! https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-website/merge_requests/31
Who is in favor? -- Eli Schwartz Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list To change your subscription options, visit https://lists.reproducible-builds.org/listinfo/rb-general. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected].
