On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 21:52:53 -0400, Holger Levsen wrote:
> 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…

I concur with Daniel, I don't see anyone suggesting to drop the build
path from the .buildinfo file just yet. But as long as that field does
not leak information I'm ok with having it there. I think eventually
it should be dropped because nothing should be recording the build
path in the build, and the build should really be independent of that.

> > 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.

For now probably yes.

> 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.

That's why I mentioned that the other language flages be included so
that we get better coverage besides C/C++.


Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to