On 2024-02-15, James Addison via rb-general wrote: > A quick recap: in July 2023, Debian's package build infrastructure > (buildd) intentionally began using a fixed directory path during > package builds (bug #1034424). Previously, some string randomness > existed within each source build directory path. > > I've two questions related to buildpaths - one relevant to the > Salsa-CI team, and the other a RB-team housekeeping question: > > 1. [Salsa] Recently Debian's CI pipeline was reconfigured[1] to > enable more variance in builds. However: I think that change also > (inadvertently?) enabled buildpath variation. Is that useful and/or > aligned with Debian package migration incentives[2] -- or should we > disable that buildpath variance?
I think it might be worth disabling build path variations by default in salsa-ci, although making it possible for people to override. > 2. [RB] Housekeeping: we use Debian's bugtracker to record packages > with buildpath-related build problems[3]. Do we want to keep those > bugs open, or should we close them? I think the bugs should remain open, but perhaps downgraded to minor or wishlist? While buildd.debian.org does now use a predictible path, sbuild does not by default and requires slightly tricky manual intervention to get the right path; many people still may perform local builds in their home directory; I am not sure if pbuilder now defaults to matching buildd.debian.org, though it is possible to specify the build path (as seen on tests.reproducible-builds.org!); reprotest still uses randomized build paths, although a WIP branch exists: https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reprotest/-/merge_requests/22 There are real-world build path issues, and while it is possible to work around them in various ways, I think they are still issues worth fixing to make it easier to debug other issues, although deprioritizing them makes sense, given buildd.debian.org now normalizes them. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature