On Donnerstag, 18. Februar 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote:
>  - I also totally was reading this as re-protest initially and wondered why
> I would want to protest again, so I concur with Esa's observation and
> conclusion
>  - on a second thought, maybe this was intentional :D

bingo! :-)
>  - it seems that the software is meant to be distribution agnostic. Would
> it still fit as a Debian SoC project? I'm not saying this wouldn't be
> useful for Debian but I think for Debian specifically a tool which lets
> developers directly test whether a given .dsc is reproducible would be
> more useful for Debian.

I guess thats totally fine. Also, diffoscope was debbindiff once too, and then 
grew. Likewise the focus of the GSOC project could be "just" creating that 
tool "within the Debian universe" (eg by implementing .deb based stuff, but 
designing with rpms and tars and foo in mind)…

>  - the README linked to above seems to implement its own backends (the
> --runner argument)  I'd like to draw your attention to the adt-virt-*
> programs which abstract several backends behind a common interface. That
> way, sbuild in experimental recently gained support for lxc, qemu and ssh
> backends without carrying its own code for each. Maybe using that would
> avoid code duplication in this tool as well?

oh wow. That made me curious and it seems piuparts supports adt-virt as well. 
Sadly that patch was merged without documentation… 

Thanks a lot for this pointer.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to