Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Chris Lamb]

Chris Lamb wrote:

> > I've made an initial step of taking my patch from:
> >
> >   https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127
> >
> > … and submitting it as a MR on salsa here:
> >
> >   
> > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/13

Alas, this didn't seem to land in the Bullseye Alpha 3 release of d-i.
Are we in time to merge it into the next alpha/beta, perhaps? :)


Best wishes,

--
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org  chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Chris Lamb]

Chris Lamb wrote:

> > I've made an initial step of taking my patch from:
> >
> >   https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127
> >
> > … and submitting it as a MR on salsa here:
> >
> >   
> > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/13
>
> May I make a gentle request to get this MR merged? It's been open for
> about 5 months now, only affects the build system and is only to
> handle cases where we have the stranger [foo=bar] arguments in
> sources.list(5) entries, which is unlikely to be the case for any
> official builds.

It has been a little disheartening to go through a large number of
minor revisions to this MR, only for it to then go unacknowledged for
almost half a year.

Please let me know if debian-boot has an alternative or preferred
method of performing reviews of this kind — I would, of course, be
more than willing to follow that if pointed in the right direction.

Without that, however, I remain at a loss at how I can effectively
contribute to this project.


Regards,

--
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org  chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Chris Lamb]

Chris Lamb wrote:

> > > My current plan is (1) breathing a little, (2) getting the needed
> > > bugfixes into 10.1.
> >
> > Whoops, I'm afraid I totally neglected to followup on this so I
> > apologise this got stalled. Anyway, anything I can do to help?
>
> I've made an initial step of taking my patch from:
>
>   https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127
>
> … and submitting it as a MR on salsa here:
>
>   https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/13

May I make a gentle request to get this MR merged? It's been open for
about 5 months now, only affects the build system and is only to
handle cases where we have the stranger [foo=bar] arguments in
sources.list(5) entries, which is unlikely to be the case for any
official builds.

As I write in my latest comment on the MR, it is not *strictly*
blocking testing whether d-i images are reproducible, but it is making
it really rather difficult -- I'm using awful 140-line local shell
script, rather using our far-superior testing framework, and we have
likely been accumulating regressions since last time I was seriously
working on this.


Regards,

--
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org  chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Chris Lamb]

Chris Lamb wrote:

> > > So, I heard a vague rumour that this "buster" thing was released? I
> > > was thus wondering whether we could apply my patch from:
> > > 
> > >   https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127
> > >   
> > > :)
> > 
> > My current plan is (1) breathing a little, (2) getting the needed
> > bugfixes into 10.1.
> 
> Whoops, I'm afraid I totally neglected to followup on this so I
> apologise this got stalled. Anyway, anything I can do to help?

I've made an initial step of taking my patch from:

  https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127

… and submitting it as a MR on salsa here:

  https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/13


Best wishes,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org  chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Chris Lamb]

[trimming CCs to just the mailing lists and #926242]

Hey all,

> > So, I heard a vague rumour that this "buster" thing was released? I
> > was thus wondering whether we could apply my patch from:
> > 
> >   https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127
> >   
> > :)
> 
> My current plan is (1) breathing a little, (2) getting the needed
> bugfixes into 10.1.

Whoops, I'm afraid I totally neglected to followup on this so I
apologise this got stalled. Anyway, anything I can do to help?


Best wishes,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org  chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Cyril Brulebois]

Chris Lamb  (2019-07-08):
> Chris Lamb wrote:
> 
> > In light of that (and whilst my shell is a little rusty) but how about
> > we just make this all more explicit instead of abusing sed/awk?
> > 
> > For example:
> 
> […]
> 
> So, I heard a vague rumour that this "buster" thing was released? I
> was thus wondering whether we could apply my patch from:
> 
>   https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127
>   
> :)

My current plan is (1) breathing a little, (2) getting the needed
bugfixes into 10.1.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Holger,

> > So, I heard a vague rumour that this "buster" thing was released? I
> > was thus wondering whether we could apply my patch from:
[…]
> https://bugs.debian.org/926242#117 makes me think this is not to be
> applied against jenkins.debian.net.git?

Pre-buster, perhaps? I don't quite see why we cannot and should not
fix it "upstream" in d-i instead? Indeed, fixing it on our Jenkins
instance would surely be rather ugly and essentially involve special-
casing, hardcoding a patch, etc. etc. Ew.

(If we should fix it in d-i, I'll create a MR or similar but I'll
save that until there is some form of ACK...)


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org  chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Holger Levsen]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 11:47:34AM -0300, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > So, I heard a vague rumour that this "buster" thing was released? I
> > > was thus wondering whether we could apply my patch from:
> […]
> > https://bugs.debian.org/926242#117 makes me think this is not to be
> > applied against jenkins.debian.net.git?
> Pre-buster, perhaps? I don't quite see why we cannot and should not
> fix it "upstream" in d-i instead? 

yes, though #926242 is a bug against jenkins.d.o|n and not against d-i/.

> Indeed, fixing it on our Jenkins
> instance would surely be rather ugly and essentially involve special-
> casing, hardcoding a patch, etc. etc. Ew.

yeah

> (If we should fix it in d-i, I'll create a MR or similar but I'll
> save that until there is some form of ACK...)

*nods*


-- 
tschau,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Holger Levsen]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 10:27:02AM -0300, Chris Lamb wrote:
> So, I heard a vague rumour that this "buster" thing was released? I
> was thus wondering whether we could apply my patch from:
>   https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127

https://bugs.debian.org/926242#117 makes me think this is not to be
applied against jenkins.debian.net.git? So, a.) a full (git) patch is nicer
than just some inline code in a bug report because b.) this also reveals 
where to apply against.


-- 
tschau,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#926242: [rb-general] Bug#926242: jenkins.debian.org: Please test reproducibility status of Debian Installer images

[Chris Lamb]

Chris Lamb wrote:

> In light of that (and whilst my shell is a little rusty) but how about
> we just make this all more explicit instead of abusing sed/awk?
> 
> For example:

[…]

So, I heard a vague rumour that this "buster" thing was released? I
was thus wondering whether we could apply my patch from:

  https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127
  
:)


Best wishes,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org  chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-