On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:35:47PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> writes:
> > I don't like the idea of hard-coding a fixed build path requirement into
> > debian policy. 

I don't *like* it neither but I think it's the sensible thing to do now.

> > We're over 80% with variable build paths in unstable
> > already, and i want to keep the pressure up on this.  The build location
> > should not influence the binary output.

I'd like to keep the pressure on this but and I think we can still that
while OTOH also trying to get closer to 100% first+too.

With build path variation reaching the worthwhile goal of having >98% 
builds will be delayed by 1-2 years at least, so this is a classic "perfect is 
enemy of good". I don't do reproducible builds for purely academic reasons,
I foremost want them to increase the security of user systems.

> It shouldn't, but my understanding is that it currently does.  If you can
> fix that, that's great, but until that's been fixed, I don't see the harm
> in documenting this as a prerequisite for a reproducible build.  If we can
> relax that prerequisite later, great, but nothing about listing it here
> should reduce the pressure on making variable build paths work.  It just
> documents the current state of the world.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to