On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:09:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs > > > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official > > > definition of reproducibility in policy states that this is not required > > > for a package to be reproducible.
I believe we'll continue to file sensible bug reports like we have done in the last four years. > Another example is that a package that is reproducible according to the > policy definition must not show up as non-reproducible in tracker/DDPO > based on results from the reproducible infrastructure. I disagree that we should modfiy the results of actual tests based on wishful thinking or some definition somewhere, even if it's our beloved debian-policy. It's certainly possible that a package becomes unreproducible, for known or unknown reasons (hopefully by now we understand most of them (or have the means to find out)), at any point in time. And then tracker/DDPO should certainly show that… Also what you are saying ("a package that is reproducible according to the policy definition must not show up as non-reproducible in tracker/DDPO based on results from the reproducible infrastructure") doesnt really makes sense: if a package shows up as unreproducible somewhere, it's not reproducible according to our definition! -- cheers, Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature