On 2017-01-16 14:28, Santiago Vila wrote:
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).
I would say that's *not* reproducible.
_______________________________________________
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
