On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> And if parallel building is irrelevant, then why do you have the
> parallel= values set differently? (Although I agree that parallel=17
> compared to parallel=18 seems unlikely to find any bugs.)
I was wrong. gedit-plugins 3.22.0-1 builds fine
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> - this aint a real world scenario for our use case, which is testing and
> working on reproducible builds. IOW: this is just another area of QA
> work, which I agree should probably be done, but it's out of scope for
> our project and d
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 01:10:53PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Only from me asking:
> | So, just to be 100% clear, simply varying DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="parallel=X"
> | would not have discovered this gedit bug?
> Where — in context — varying meant 17 vs. 18 instead of 1 vs. 18.
it wasn't clear to me
> > This entire email chain was prompted by such a case.
>
> what makes you think so? this wasn't and isn't clear for me, neither
> from the mails nor from https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=770100
Only from me asking:
| So, just to be 100% clear, simply varying DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="para
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:32:13PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > yes, I cannot imagine there's something which is reproducible if build
> > in parallel but not if not.
> This entire email chain was prompted by such a case.
what makes you think so? this wasn't and isn't clear for me, neither
from th
> > Right, so make all the pkg-gnome packages build reproducibly without
> > paralellism enabled (which you should do anyway) and then simply
> > build with parallel enabled.
>
> yes, I cannot imagine there's something which is reproducible if build
> in parallel but not if not.
This entire email
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:58:24AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > I understand that building with parallel disabled takes much longer
> > for many packages so I don't know if this is just a lack of resources
> It's more that we have two builds and I think (?) we would prefer to do
> different va
> I understand that building with parallel disabled takes much longer
> for many packages so I don't know if this is just a lack of resources
It's more that we have two builds and I think (?) we would prefer to do
different values of N > 1. So a different kind of resource problem.
> I think it wo
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Chris Lamb wrote:
> So, just to be 100% clear, simply varying DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="parallel=X"
> would not have discovered this gedit bug? (Related, our list of variations
> between the builds can be viewed online[0])
I don't know, but the difference between paralle
> I propose that one of the builds disable parallelism entirely
So, just to be 100% clear, simply varying DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="parallel=X"
would not have discovered this gedit bug? (Related, our list of variations
between the builds can be viewed online[0])
> I want to go ahead and push parallel-bu
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Very interesting bug; thanks for sharing.
I noticed that bug a while ago, so gedit in unstable/testing currently
explicitly opts out of parallel building.
> However, I may be misunderstanding your query as the tests we run as part
> of reprodu
Dear Jeremy,
Thanks for getting in touch; glad you are finding diffoscope useful!
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/770100
Very interesting bug; thanks for sharing.
> Going a step further, maybe reproducible-builds.org should do this
> check since it seems it would be relatively easy to implement th
Hi,
I used diffoscope to find a bug when gedit is compiled in parallel.[1]
I think we'll be switching quite a few GNOME packages over to dh
compat 10 soon with parallel building enabled by default.
Do you have any suggestions for how we could easily automate building
a bunch of packages with and
13 matches
Mail list logo
