On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 08:45:03AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> >> Note: I confused myself when writing this; in fact Salsa-CI reprotest
> >> _does_
> >> continue to test build-path variance, at least until we decide otherwise.
> > this is in fact a bug and should be fixed with the next
James Addison wrote:
> None of the remaining thirty-or-so (and in fact, none of the 66 updated so
> far)
> are usertagged both 'buildpath' and 'toolchain'.
>
> I would say that a few of them _are_ 'toolchain packages' -- mono,
> binutils-dev
> and a few others -- but for these bugs the
Thanks, Chris,
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 at 13:01, Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> > Approximately thirty are still set to other severity levels, and I plan to
> > update those with the following adjusted messaging […]
>
> Looks good to me. :)
>
> Completely out of interest, are any of those 30
Hi James,
> Approximately thirty are still set to other severity levels, and I plan to
> update those with the following adjusted messaging […]
Looks good to me. :)
Completely out of interest, are any of those 30 bugs tagged both
"buildpath" and "toolchain"? It's written nowhere in Policy (and
Hi again,
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 18:24, James Addison wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 01:04, James Addison wrote:
> > [ ... snip ...]
> >
> > The Debian bug severity descriptions[1] provide some more nuance, and that
> > reassures me that wishlist should be appropriate for most
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 11:45 AM, Vagrant Cascadian
> wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-12, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 06:24:22PM +, James Addison via rb-general wrote:
>>> Please find below a draft of the message I'll send to each affected
>>> bugreport.
>>
>> looks good to me,
On 2024-03-12, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 06:24:22PM +, James Addison via rb-general wrote:
>> Please find below a draft of the message I'll send to each affected
>> bugreport.
>
> looks good to me, thank you for doing this!
>
>> Note: I confused myself when writing
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 06:24:22PM +, James Addison via rb-general wrote:
> Please find below a draft of the message I'll send to each affected bugreport.
looks good to me, thank you for doing this!
> Note: I confused myself when writing this; in fact Salsa-CI reprotest _does_
> continue to
Hi folks,
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 01:04, James Addison wrote:
> [ ... snip ...]
>
> The Debian bug severity descriptions[1] provide some more nuance, and that
> reassures me that wishlist should be appropriate for most of these bugs
> (although I'll inspect their contents before making any
On Wed, 2024-03-06 at 14:57 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:51:16PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > FWIW Yocto Project is a strong believer in build reproducibiity
> > independent of build path and we've been quietly chipping away at
> > those
> > issues.
> [...]
> >
Thank you, Vagrant, for taking my concerns seriously. I realize you've
been working on this much longer than I have, so I appreciate your
perspective.
On 3/6/24 10:55 AM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
That means that we do not always support each other in all things, but
we can support each other
On 2024-03-05, John Neffenger wrote:
> 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
On 2024-03-05, John Gilmore wrote:
> 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 small patch to the
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:51:16PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> FWIW Yocto Project is a strong believer in build reproducibiity
> independent of build path and we've been quietly chipping away at those
> issues.
[...]
> OpenEmbedded-Core (around 1000 pieces of software) is 100% reproducible
>
Hi Vagrant,
Narrowing in on (or perhaps nitpicking) a detail:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 20:41, Vagrant Cascadian
wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-04, John Gilmore wrote:
> > Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> >> > > to make it easier to debug other issues, although deprioritizing them
> >> > > makes sense, given
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
> 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 at Debian no longer invokes this
>> bug
On 2024-03-04, John Gilmore wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> > > to make it easier to debug other issues, although deprioritizing them
>> > > makes sense, given buildd.debian.org now normalizes them.
>
> James Addison via rb-general wrote:
>> Ok, thank you both. A number of these bugs are
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 at Debian no longer invokes this
> bug because it always uses the same build directory?
because it's
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> > > to make it easier to debug other issues, although deprioritizing them
> > > makes sense, given buildd.debian.org now normalizes them.
James Addison via rb-general wrote:
> Ok, thank you both. A number of these bugs are currently recorded at severity
> level
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:06, Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
> > There are real-world build path issues, and while it is possible to work
> > around them in various ways, I think they are still issues worth fixing
> > to make it easier to debug other issues, although
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> There are real-world build path issues, and while it is possible to work
> around them in various ways, I think they are still issues worth fixing
> to make it easier to debug other issues, although deprioritizing them
> makes sense, given buildd.debian.org now
On 2024-02-15, James Addison via rb-general wrote:
> A quick recap: in July 2023, Debian's package build infrastructure
> (buildd) intentionally began using a fixed directory path during
> package builds (bug #1034424). Previously, some string randomness
> existed within each source build
Hi folks,
A quick recap: in July 2023, Debian's package build infrastructure
(buildd) intentionally began using a fixed directory path during
package builds (bug #1034424). Previously, some string randomness
existed within each source build directory path.
I've two questions related to
31 matches
Mail list logo
