On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I am seeking formal seconds for this patch, from any DD.
> 
> In particular:
> 
> - for now, we only require reproducibility when the set of environment
>   variable values set is exactly the same
> 
>   This is because
> 
>   - the reproducible builds team aren't yet totally clear on the
>     variables that they think may be allowed to vary
> 
>   - we should wait until .buildinfo is properly documented in policy,
>     and then we can refer to that file
> 
> - we don't require reproducibility when build paths vary
> 
>   This is because
> 
>   - since there is not a consensus on whether we should require this,
>     and there is strong consensus on the requirement of reproducibility
>     if the path does /not/ vary, this issue should not block this change.
>     We should open a separate bug against debian-policy
> 
> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> index 127b125..cc4b020 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -661,6 +661,22 @@ particularly complex or unintuitive source layout or 
> build system (for
>  example, a package that builds the same source multiple times to
>  generate different binary packages).
>  
> +Reproducibility
> +---------------
> +
> +Packages should build reproducibly, which for the purposes of this
> +document [#]_ means that given
> +
> +- a version of a source package unpacked at a given path;
> +- a set of versions of installed build dependencies;
> +- a set of environment variable values; and
> +- a build architecture,
> +
> +repeatedly building the source package on any machine of the same
> +architecture with those versions of the build dependencies installed
> +and exactly those environment variable values set will produce
> +bit-for-bit identical binary packages.
> +
>  .. [#]
>     See the file ``upgrading-checklist`` for information about policy
>     which has changed between different versions of this document.
> @@ -790,3 +806,7 @@ generate different binary packages).
>     often creates either static linking or shared library conflicts, and,
>     most importantly, increases the difficulty of handling security
>     vulnerabilities in the duplicated code.
> +
> +.. [#]
> +   This is Debian's precisification of the `reproducible-builds.org
> +   definition <https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/definition/>`_.

very happily seconded, many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this bug
directly or "indirectly" (I'm thinking specifically about Lunar here).


-- 
cheers,
        Holger (who watched 
http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2017/debconf17/reproducible-builds-status-update.vp8.webm
 today and was equally happy when seeing the whole audience agreeing this 
should be in policy - and the applause after Russ's closing statement was also 
very very niceā€¦!)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
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