On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 02:19:44PM +0000, Paul Sherwood wrote: > On 2017-01-16 11:26, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Before I use this rationale more times in some discussions out there, > > I'd > > like to be sure that there is a consensus. > > > > What's the definition of reproducible? It is more like A or more like B? > > > > A. Every time the package is attempted to build, the build succeeds, > > and the same .deb are always created. > > I may be wrong, but I believe that it's not possible to guarantee that the > build succeeds every single time, even once we've locked all inputs to be in > a known state. Cosmic rays would be one potential breakage, or corruption of > a built intermediate artifact etc.
But I'm not speaking about cosmic rays or disk failures, but things which are intrinsic to the package itself: A very simple and funny example: Would we call a package having this bug "reproducible"? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838828 (It has a mathematically-proved probability > 0 of failure). Thanks. _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds