Hi! 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++. Thanks, Guillem _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds