On Tue 2016-03-29 20:58:32 -0400, Holger Levsen wrote:
> not wanting to spoil the fun, but…
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 06:33:49PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> > Ah great! And one less way to leak local information.
>> yep :)
>
> I *believe* it's not enough (for reproducible builds in arbitrary
> pathes) if gcc+clang can now cope. IIRC there are other compilers that
> have the same behaviour, eg ocaml and erlang, but probably others too.
>
> Someone shoulds to check this and confirm or deny though.

This isn't fun-spoiling, it's a useful reality check.  But if we were
required to get all the way to 100% before we made any progress, then
reproducible builds wouldn't have gotten off the ground at all.

The changes proposed in this bug report are a good step that should
handle a very large proportion of the debian archive.  The fact that
there will remain corners of the archive that need additional work is
fine: we can turn our attention to the remaining 20% once we get 80% of
the buildpaths resolved.

    -dkg

_______________________________________________
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

Reply via email to