Holger Levsen: > control: found -1 3.4.0-1 > control: notfound -1 3.4.0-1.0~reproducible2 > > Hi Dirk, > > I've asked Ximin to file this bug so that we have something to track and to > refer in discussions… > > you wrote: > >> At work now with limited time, but I think I already told you twice that >> there were two of the three parts of the patch you proposed to upstream that >> I would not take, were I upstream (which I am not). > > Dirk, could you please point out (here in this bug report) which of the two > parts > you consider unsuitable? >
We talked about this over private email, this refers to the patch hunks in: - src/library/tools/R/admin.R - src/library/tools/R/parseRd.R The suggestion was to guard them behind a command-line option using getOption, so presumably Debian could set this whilst upstream / other distros do not. However, since I'm not familiar with the full R codebase I was waiting to see if upstream had any further comments, because even with the getOption() change there might be other consequences that I didn't foresee. In this case it would be beneficial for Debian's behaviour to exactly match upstream, so we get the same bugs (if any). > Ximin, looking at > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/reproducible/r-base.git/log/?h=pu/reproducible_builds > I believe it would be best to merge those two (top most) commits into one? > >> A decent longer-term strategy may well to stress-test the patch by including >> it in our builds for a while. We can work on that. > > actually we've been using Ximin's patches on tests.reproducible-builds.org > since the 2nd of May on amd64 and since the 3rd on arm64, armhf and i386. > > According to > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/index_performance.html > (top row labeled "oldest build result) in the first table on the right) this > means we've almost done a full rebuild with the patch on amd64+arm64 (probably > 85% done now) and pretty close to that on i386… > > According to this, this patch seems to work well… > The patch works well for getting stuff built, but I haven't tested all of the *behaviour* of these packages. (Some probably have unit tests, but these don't cover everything at any rate.) That is why I wanted to wait for upstreams' comments first, before adding the getOption guards - which are relatively minor IMO, compared to what the full patch does. I also haven't tested other potential tools that might process R rdb files, who might for some reason expect absolute build paths. X -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
