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 ge
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
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
[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 li
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
> w
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 jenk
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 se
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
ap
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 patc
Philip Hands wrote:
> BTW I note that in the original (and therefore in this too) that the
> exclusion of cdrom: and the 'deb file' to 'deb copy' bits only work if
> there's no [option] bit in the line -- was that an oversight?
I would guess so, yes.
In light of that (and whilst my shell is a li
Philip Hands writes:
...
> I failed to resist that, so I _think_ this sed command implements the
> same effect as those greps/seds & awk:
>
> sed -ne '/^deb[[:space:]]\+cdrom/d;
>/\(security.debian.org\|volatile.debian.\(net\|org\)\)/d;
>/^deb[[:space:]]\+.*[[:space:]]\+m
"Chris Lamb" writes:
> [adding rb-gene...@lists.reproducible-builds.org to CC]
>
> Hi Colin,
>
>> This is all from dubious memory, but I suspect my setup at the time was
>> roughly an amd64 system with:
>>
>> deb [arch=amd64]
>> deb
>>
>> ... on the grounds that my local partial mirror di
Hi Cyril,
> > Devil's advocate: this is surely unlikely to break the release of
> > buster itself? I mean, for the "final" official buster builds, that is?
>
> That's exactly the point: I don't think it's unlikely. […]
Could you elaborate on this bit? sources.list(5) options aren't /that/
common
Chris Lamb (2019-06-05):
> I naturally understand your hesitation but on the other hand I would
> truly love to see this in buster. Indeed, we may actually have done
> enough work to boast about having reproducible installer images for
> the upcoming release (!) although without testing on our mor
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> I'm a little wary with possibly merging this late in the release cycle,
> so I'd rather get see that looked at after Buster is out.
I naturally understand your hesitation but on the other hand I would
truly love to see this in buster. Indeed, we may actually have done
eno
Hi,
Chris Lamb (2019-06-05):
> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you all here.
>
> I've got this working locally here although we require the following
> change to the gen-sources.list.udeb script. Basically, we need print
> three columns if we have "[options]", otherwise we just print
[adding rb-gene...@lists.reproducible-builds.org to CC]
Hi Colin,
> This is all from dubious memory, but I suspect my setup at the time was
> roughly an amd64 system with:
>
> deb [arch=amd64]
> deb
>
> ... on the grounds that my local partial mirror didn't have space for
> both amd64 and
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:05:40AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Dear Colin,
> > It would be worth somebody trying out a d-i build on a system with this
> > kind of configuration to see if it still breaks
> ^
>
> Just to clarify, building d-i on a system with [arch=...] foo in i
Dear Colin,
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/commit/fa965c32ca8bfa2ff14886c6f0dca131532815c7
[…]
> I'm not certain even after going through my IRC and email logs around
> that time, but given the timing I suspect that it was a workaround for
> multiarch systems w
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:56:35PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Colin Watson removed it back in 2011:
>
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/commit/fa965c32ca8bfa2ff14886c6f0dca131532815c7
>
> commit fa965c32ca8bfa2ff14886c6f0dca131532815c7
> Author: Colin Watson
On 2019-05-18, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> Now, regarding building d-i as a normal package, I hit a bit of a
>> readblock because it fails while trying to download the files in the
>> nodes running in the future.
>
> Sounds about right:
>
>
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable
[dropping CCs already subscribed to debian-boot]
Hi Mattia,
> Now, regarding building d-i as a normal package, I hit a bit of a
> readblock because it fails while trying to download the files in the
> nodes running in the future.
Sounds about right:
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debi
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 06:45:28AM -0400, Chris Lamb wrote:
> My conception is that as we call diffoscope on the two .changes files
> it will report they are reproducible as, well, the binary package will
> (likely…) be identical.
Yup. It would.
> > The tricky part is that that "tarball" we have
Chris Lamb, le mer. 03 avril 2019 06:45:28 -0400, a ecrit:
> > > Whilst it may build indeed these files they do not appear in the
> > > binary package:
> >
> > > Thus, they cannot affect the reproducibility status of the debian-
> > > installer source package. […]
> >
> > Yes they do!
>
> Oh, han
Chris Lamb (2019-04-03):
> Hi Mattia,
>
> > > Whilst it may build indeed these files they do not appear in the
> > > binary package:
> >
> > > Thus, they cannot affect the reproducibility status of the debian-
> > > installer source package. […]
> >
> > Yes they do!
>
> Oh, hang on, does src:de
Hi Mattia,
> > Whilst it may build indeed these files they do not appear in the
> > binary package:
>
> > Thus, they cannot affect the reproducibility status of the debian-
> > installer source package. […]
>
> Yes they do!
Oh, hang on, does src:debian-installer's .changes file include these
ext
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 06:21:39AM -0400, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Whilst it may build indeed these files they do not appear in the
> binary package:
> Thus, they cannot affect the reproducibility status of the debian-
> installer source package. This prompted my paragraph regarding at
> least includin
Dear Mattia,
> > TIL. However, as these generated files do not appear in the binary
> > debian-installer package it is likely that that our testing framework
> > will (after the mooted networking exception is made) entirely-
> > correctly report that the src:debian-installer package is reproducibl
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 05:50:26AM -0400, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hey Cyril & Samuel,
>
> > > It doesn't build the netinst/CD/DVD iso images indeed (debian-cd handles
> > > that). But it builds the initrd used there (and the netboot mini.iso).
> >
> > Right. Check the tarball (!) produced by building
Hi,
kudos for the progress so far!
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 05:50:26AM -0400, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Just throwing out ideas here but perhaps this binary package could
> contain at least the hashes of the generated files you mention?
or we setup debian-cd builds as well..!
--
tschau,
Hol
Hey Cyril & Samuel,
> > It doesn't build the netinst/CD/DVD iso images indeed (debian-cd handles
> > that). But it builds the initrd used there (and the netboot mini.iso).
>
> Right. Check the tarball (!) produced by building src:debian-installer;
> that's what gets installed in installer-$arch d
Samuel Thibault (2019-04-03):
> Hello,
>
> Chris Lamb, le mer. 03 avril 2019 05:01:44 -0400, a ecrit:
> > > Does the installer need anything special? I thought d-i was just like
> > > any other package when it came to regular building it.
> >
> > For some reason I thought that src:debian-instal
Hello,
Chris Lamb, le mer. 03 avril 2019 05:01:44 -0400, a ecrit:
> > Does the installer need anything special? I thought d-i was just like
> > any other package when it came to regular building it.
>
> For some reason I thought that src:debian-installer was a special-case
> package (or simply u
Hey Mattia et al.,
> Does the installer need anything special? I thought d-i was just like
> any other package when it came to regular building it.
For some reason I thought that src:debian-installer was a special-case
package (or simply used for its build-depends) and it does not
"really" build
user jenkins.debian@packages.debian.org
usertags 926242 reproducible
thanks
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 09:30:58AM -0400, Chris Lamb wrote:
> However, it would be great if we had some continuous testing of this,
> with the usual bells-and-whistles of running/publishing diffoscope
> reports, etc.
>
Package: jenkins.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Hi,
(CC'ing the Installer Team as they likely have input.)
In a number of commits and bugs (#920631, #920676, etc. etc.) I've
managed to make the Debian Installer images reproducible, at least on
the archit
36 matches
Mail list logo
