On 2023-08-15 09:38:32 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 15/08/23 at 01:29 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > we don't know, since the test was "regenerate source"--a thing very few > > people care about--rather than "build twice" which is the thing people do > > seem to care about. It seems likely that the difference is thousands of > > packages. > > > > I'm somewhat concerned we magically went from "should we do an MBF" to "I > > just did an MBF" without any real consensus in the middle. This being so > > painfully obvious that the MBF itself basically says there's no consensus. > > I agree that the distinction between "fails to build source after > successful build" and "fails to build binary packages after successful > build" is useful. My initial test covered both, but I separated both > issues later on to provide more specific bug reports, so the MBF only > covered the first case. I also plan to do a MBF for "fails to build > binary packages after successful build" (there are about 700 packages > failing this).
Note that if the source has been modified, it may be possible that the second build succeeds but is incorrect. I suppose that you need to check that both builds are identical. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
