Hi Tim, On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 04:44:21PM -0500, Tim Theisen wrote: > Now that reproducible builds are mandatory, I am working on getting condor > to meet those requirements. > I am new to this and slightly confused.
this *is* new indeed, so don't worry. > I recently got condor to build reproducibly, as you can see on Salsa: > https://salsa.debian.org/hpc-team/condor/-/pipelines nice. > And on the package info page, in the testing migrations section, it shows > that the amd64 build is reproducible. > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/condor > > However, on the reproducible results page, it shows the same version is not > reproducible. > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/condor.html > > So, why is there this disagreement? Is there one that is the authoritative > answer? because tracker.debian.org (since recently) doesn't show the results from tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian anymore, but instead those from reproduce.debian.net. to quote from r.d.n: The goal of https://reproduce.debian.net is to replicate the same build process that is used by Debian during package publication -- not to seek out additional sources of variance. Variance testing, used to find factors that can prevent packages from rebuilding reproducibly, will continue at https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/reproducible.html. IOW, t.r-b.o does CI tests (which may fail), while what r.d.n. does affects testing migrations. > The disagreement seems to be with the NT_GNU_BUILD_ID. I thought that the > default rules would take care of that with -ffile-prefix-map. One suggestion > that I was was to link with build_id is sha1. I don't know if that is > warranted. difference in NT_GNU_BUILD_IT usually indicates a difference in the binary which got stripped away by dh_strip. > Also, once a package is reproducible on one platform, I would expect it to > be reproducible on other platforms/CPU architectures. I also expect this and usually this is the case, but basically there are exceptions to everything and there are bugs and other things too. > It claims that there was a regression in reproducibility on i386 it that is > blocking promotion. None of the recent changes should caused this. > > What kinds of issues cause a package to not build reproducibly on arm64, > when it build reproducibly on the amd64 platform. > > Any hints are appreciated. I've had a brief look but sadly couldnt see anthing immediatly. ATM you can still request the release team to ignore this issue and let it migrate to testing anyway. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ The difference between 2C and 3C? Civilisation.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
