Bug#138409: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files

[Johannes Schauer]

Hi,

Quoting Jérémy Bobbio (2016-02-04 12:23:05)
> We have to educate them about .buildinfo file and what the various fields
> mean. We have to aim at field names that are as unambigious as possible to
> avoid laying traps on users.
> 
> For the particular case of “Installed-Transitive-Build-Depends”, it's easy
> enough to explain “these are the name and version of all packages which made
> building these binary packages possible”. Math geeks can get a more formal
> definition.

since we probably never want to record the explicitly non-transitive build
dependencies in the .buildinfo (because those are already recorded elsewhere),
adding "transitive" to the name is probably not necessary. On IRC I agreed with
Holger that using your original proposal and calling it Installed-Build-Depends
should be enough. I think even an uneducated reader would quickly figure out
that this field is not listing the direct but also the indirect (transitive)
depends.

Thanks and sorry for bikeshedding!

cheers, josch


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#138409: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: Bug#138409: dpkg-dev: please add support for .buildinfo files

[Jérémy Bobbio]

Holger Levsen:
> I know that *you* have grasped the concept of transitive build depends very 
> well, but I'm pretty sure that 97% of the DD population have no idea what 
> transitive build depends are, especially compared to build-depends or 
> alternative build-depends. And even 70% were too many.

Sorry Holger but we are introducing new concepts. So sure, 97% of the DD
population have no idea what we are talking about, but that's fine.

We have to educate them about .buildinfo file and what the various
fields mean. We have to aim at field names that are as unambigious as
possible to avoid laying traps on users.

For the particular case of “Installed-Transitive-Build-Depends”,
it's easy enough to explain “these are the name and version of all
packages which made building these binary packages possible”. Math
geeks can get a more formal definition.

“Built-Using” is already taken with a very precise meaning (and is there
for license-compliance reasons), but that would be the simpliest way to
sum up the short statement above. Given these are .buildinfo files, I
would be bold and suggest just “Using”.


I need to state that I care more about not drowning ourselves in bike
shedding than finding the perfect name.


-- 
Lunar.''`. 
lu...@debian.org: :Ⓐ  :  # apt-get install anarchism
`. `'` 
  `-   


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature