On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 05:16:47PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 02:04:03PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > IIRC you said in some other thread that dh-buildinfo is causing you > > issues. If that is the case (= if I'm not misremembering), an upload > > that "defuses" dh-buildinfo would immediately solve the issue. > > > > And then maintainers can get to their bugs whenever. Possibly only > > when dh-buildinfo actually gets removed from unstable. > > > > So - does dh-buildinfo cause you issues? > > yes. several: > - dh-buildinfo makes packages less reproducible as the *current* build > environment is included in the packages. (while not having them stored > inside the packages allows or at least doesn't block 100% identical > rebuilds in a slighlty different build environment.) > - it increases build times, thus ressource usages and often humans wait > for builds. > - it increases installed size, both for the archive as well as on > millions of installations. > - it's not useful at all, as it's only used by 5% of the packages, while 100% > of the packages build with dpkg produce .buildinfo files outside the > packages built. > > It's not the greatest bug in the world, yet it is a bug.
Replace dh_buildinfo by a script that just print a warning but does not actually generate the file, then ask for binNMU ? Update the description to mention the problem. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
