On 2023-05-28, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2023 13:04:40 +0100, James Addison via rb-general
> wrote:
>> Thanks for sharing this.
>>
>> I think that the problem with this idea and name are:
>>
>> - That it does not allow two or more people to share and confirm that
>> they have
On Sun, 28 May 2023 08:02:18 +0200, "Bernhard M. Wiedemann via rb-general"
wrote:
> I agree, that it is good to give it a name (I have called it
> semi-reproducible before), but we should be clear on communicating the
> disadvantages.
Agreed.
> However, while working with the tool, I
On Sat, 27 May 2023 15:24:25 +0200, kpcyrd wrote:
> I think semantically reproducible builds is going to be more expensive
> in the long run.
I think my intended use case is really different from what you're expecting.
In my use case, the "expense" is irrelevant.
I'm primarily trying to
On Sun, 28 May 2023 13:04:40 +0100, James Addison via rb-general
wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for sharing this.
>
> I think that the problem with this idea and name are:
>
> - That it does not allow two or more people to share and confirm that
> they have the same build of some software.
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 04:06:44PM -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Reproducible builds are great for showing that a package really was
> built from some given source, but sometimes they're hard to do.
>
> If your primary goal is to determine where the major risks are from
> subverted builds, I
Hi David,
Thanks for sharing this.
I think that the problem with this idea and name are:
- That it does not allow two or more people to share and confirm that
they have the same build of some software.
- That it does not allow tests to fail-early, catching and preventing
reproducibility
I agree, that it is good to give it a name (I have called it
semi-reproducible before), but we should be clear on communicating the
disadvantages.
In openSUSE we have been working towards repeatable semantically
reproducible builds for over a decade [1] using our open-build-service
and a
