Andreas Henriksson: > Package: debhelper > Version: 11.5.3 > Severity: wishlist > > Dear Maintainer, >
Hi Andreas, Thanks for filing the bug. > While looking into some of the spotted reproducible build issues > related to building on merged-usr vs non-merged systems[1] > and fixed a couple of them[2][3] I was thinking that the > "whack-a-mole" strategy might not be the best here. > This seems to still be a "whack-a-mole" strategy; we are just centralizing it to debhelper (which does have some merit). > [...] > > Apart from looking at the specific tools used in the already > spotted reproducible build issues[1], doing a codesearch for > AC_PATH_PROG and also investigating AC_PROG_* from autoconf docs[4] > could be used as an inspiration to come up with with variables to > set, which could be eg. > > MKTEMP=/bin/mktemp > GREP=/bin/grep > ... > > What do you think? Are setting these during configure unconditionally > too scary? If it needs to happen in a new compat level, it likely > won't have as big as an impact while also not helping in enough > cases to be useful (but maybe not). > > [1]: > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/paths_vary_due_to_usrmerge_issue.html > [2]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=914907 > [3]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=914911 > [4]: > https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/Particular-Programs.html > > > > Regards, > Andreas Henriksson > Honestly, I am conflicted on this. On one hand, I do not want to maintain such a list forever - which I would have if usrmerge will remain optional forever. On the other hand, I can see how this would be useful in deflating the current (and future) d-d mail threads about usrmerge. I will be considering it for now. Thanks, ~Niels
