Hi, On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 09:36:00PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > 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.
it's surely progress on the gcc/clang side of things but dropping the build path from the .buildinfo files would be a huge step *backwards* for reproducibility… > 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. true. my point was: I think we still need the build path in the .buildinfo files. (And btw, this (build path in buildinfo files) is not what *this* bug report is about. but it's related.) Also, c/c++ packages today only make up a small portion of the archive. Probably this famous someone should do a rebuild of the archive, using our toolchain (and this patch), using arbitrary build pathes. -- cheers, Holger
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproduciblefirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds