On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 11:38:32PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Similarly to the other bug you mention, I think the incidence of this > FTBFS is low... at least elsewhere w.r.t. your build environment. I've > personal never witnessed this, and I'm aware of a bunch of other people > who have built from scratch without issues. More to the point, > reproducible building the package is working fine on at least four > architectures, including the one you are testing on: > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/beancount.html
I fear that this kind of reasoning may be leading us to discriminating users based on how close/far their building systems are to reproducible-builds.org or buildd.debian.org regarding things not covered by Debian Policy (for example, overall computer speed). Also, I hope you will surely agree that telling me that you can build the package in your computer does not help me at all to build the package in my computer. In this case I'm just doing QA, but if I wanted to modify the software, the end result is that I could not. So, while we are not violating the DFSG in strict sense, as we are still distributing the source, the user still can't exercise their right to modify the software in practical terms. How can we ensure that the user can rebuild any package if we start downgrading bugs like this one? Maybe by telling them that they have to use another computer? That would be, imo, slighly more obnoxious than telling them that have to install a missing build-depends, something which is already a serious bug. (I'm not changing the severity, and I'm still offering a test machine for you to reproduce the issue if you need it). Thanks.
