Hi, adding Antonio to the loop, keeping full quote for his benefit.
On Samstag, 19. September 2015, Chris Lamb wrote: > I just ran into yet another package where the contents can vary > depending on whether the tests are run or not. I do think this is an interesting thing to test, but I'm not sure whether the reproducible builds test setup is the right place for it. > As an example, without tests a given Python package entirely vanilla and > is thus reproducible in our toolchain. However, executing the tests > creates various intermediary files that are genuinely useful (eg. > compiled versions of grammars, not .pyc files). These files are then > installed to the binary package. > > I'm only really discovering these when these files themselves are > unreproducible/non-deterministic, otherwise they are completely > invisible. > > So, does this matter to us? It's strictly more of a general QA issue if > we are declare that DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS does not contain nocheck from an > reproducibility PoV.. but on the other hand, our testing framework would > make this almost trivial to detect. > > (Why another build? Whilst adding `nocheck` to our current `b` build > could work, it would be a bad regression as I would dearly miss having > the tests run in an exotic locale and timezone, etc., hence proposing a > `c` build). Antonio, do you think this is something for ci.d.o? Chris, should we forward this as a bug report for qa.d.o so someone can implement this some day? OTOH, if you have an idea how to meaningful integrate this into the current reproducible setup, I'd be all ears! From the above I can gather that this could be possible, maybe, but I'm not sure how much interference this will cause… cheers, Holger
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproduciblefirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds