Chris Lamb:
> I just ran into yet another package where the contents can vary
> depending on whether the tests are run or not.
> 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).

My take on this: I want to wait until we can rebuild packages taken from
directly the archive. We can easily run these later rebuilds with
“nocheck”. That should enable us to spot these problems.

What do you think?

Lunar                                .''`.                    : :Ⓐ  :  # apt-get install anarchism
                                    `. `'` 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to