Thanks, everyone, for your contributions to this discussion.
A quick note:
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> It would be pretty impractical, at least for Debian tests, to test
> without SOURC_DATE_EPOCH, as dpkg will set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH from
> debian/changelog for quite a few years now.
Making a
On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 08:08 -0800, John Gilmore wrote:
> > > But today, if you're building an executable for others, it's common to
> > > build using a
> > > container/chroot or similar that makes it easy to implement "must compile
> > > with these paths",
> > > while *fixing* this is often a
On 3/5/24 2:11 PM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
I have no way to change these choices.
Then clearly you have not been provided sufficient information,
configuration, software, etc. in order to reproduce the build!
Rather, I really can't change it or configure it any differently.
Three builds:
On 2024-03-05, John Gilmore wrote:
... it makes reproducibilty from around 80-85% of all
packages to >95%, IOW with this shortcut we can have meaningful
reproducibility
*many years* sooner, than without.
...
> I'd rather that we knew and documented that 57% of
On 2024-03-05, John Neffenger wrote:
> On 3/5/24 8:08 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> Our instructions for reproducing any package would have to identify what
>> container/chroot/namespace/whatever the end-user must set up to be able
>> to successfully reproduce a package.
The build instructions
On 3/5/24 8:08 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
Our instructions for reproducing any package would have to identify what
container/chroot/namespace/whatever the end-user must set up to be able
to successfully reproduce a package.
And even then, it won't always work.
I need to verify the JavaFX builds
>> But today, if you're building an executable for others, it's common to build
>> using a
>> container/chroot or similar that makes it easy to implement "must compile
>> with these paths",
>> while *fixing* this is often a lot of work.
I know that my opinion is not popular, but let me try
On 3/4/24 22:25, David A. Wheeler via rb-general wrote:
On Mar 4, 2024, at 3:37 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:52:07AM -0800, John Gilmore wrote:
Why would these become "wishlist" bugs as opposed to actual reproducibility bugs
that deserve fixing, just because one server
James Addison wrote:
> I've opened a merge request[1] to explore this error-treatment approach; it
> lacks useful error messaging so far, but I'll attempt to add that soon.
In your enthusiasm I think you neglected to included the actual "[1]"
URL later in your mail. However, allow me to do that
