Chris Lamb:
>> After reading the disorderfs manpage I wonder if it's really already
>> suitable to build everything
> This is a little awkward for me as I raised these concerns a couple of
> times during the BoF but I did not want to temper anyone's enthusiasm in
> the room. I therefore did not labour the point, especially as I was
> curious to have the tool existing for "private" tests, ie. even if we
> did not -- or could not -- introduce it into our regular variations.
> As it happens, I'm not especially concerned that it will /break/ builds
> per-se, but rather that any FUSE/LD_PRELOAD/$FOO-based "hack" makes it
> more difficult to file bugs against maintainers' packages; the results
> are either immediately suspect or can be blamed on such hackery.
> Putting it another way, I would certainly feel justified in replying to
> such a bug report asking the reporter whether it's reproducible outside
> of such a tool.

What about doing only the second build in disorderfs with some random
sorting. When everything works order you have successfully tested
reproducibility (including file ordering). When the first build fails it
can't be disorderfs' fault. And builds where only the second build fails
needs more investigation.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to