Hi, Quoting Guillem Jover (2015-06-26 06:30:39) > On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 09:31:05 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > Some people suggested that we should record a checksum of the `.deb` > > installed as a way to unambiguously referring to a specific package. > > In principle the tuple pkgname-version-arch should be unique per > archive, otherwise bad-things-will-happen. Of course that does not > cover locally built packages and similar, or mixing different archives > with duplicated tuples, but then those are probably out-of-scope for > reproducible builds *in* Debian anyway, I guess.
I would like to second this. During my work on real dependency solvers, we need an answer to the question what makes a package unique and as Guillem already pointed out, a binary package is unique if it has the same packagename-version-arch tuple. In principal it would theoretically be possible to extend this definition by a fourth tuple member being a checksum of some sorts but that would mean that even more software like dpkg and apt would have to be adapted to follow this new definition of unique-ness. So instead of doing that I'd rather like if everybody building binary packages that could potentially end up being mixed with Debian packages would realize that *the name-ver-arch tuple they use for them must be unique*. If they don't manage to do that, then somebody should make them aware of the problem that packages are unique by the name-ver-arch tuple. Since David pointed out that this is a real problem, I think this issue might need more awareness. In summary, yes this could be solved technically but I'd rather prefer a social solution which spreads awareness about the unique-ness problem. cheers, josch
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducibleemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds