Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Bill, > > > Now compare with reproducible build. You get some error report you > > > cannot reproduce, do some change following the help provided and > > > hope for the best. Then some day later you get the same error > > > report. > > > > I'd dearly love to know when/where this occurred if you

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:40:23PM -0700, Chris Lamb wrote: > Hi Bill, > > > Now compare with reproducible build. You get some error report you > > cannot reproduce, do some change following the help provided and > > hope for the best. Then some day later you get the same error > > report. > >

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Hi Bill, > Now compare with reproducible build. You get some error report you > cannot reproduce, do some change following the help provided and > hope for the best. Then some day later you get the same error > report. I'd dearly love to know when/where this occurred if you can provide a

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Russ Allbery: > Ximin Luo writes: > >> Fair enough. I actually spotted that but thought it was better to get >> "something" into Policy rather than nitpick. I guess other people were >> thinking similar things. Well, lesson learnt, I will be more forceful >> next time. >

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Bill Allombert writes: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:36:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Note that, for most developers, this is pretty much equivalent to the >> current situation with FTBFS on, say, s390 architectures. Or even >> issues with running under whichever init

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:36:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Note that, for most developers, this is pretty much equivalent to the > current situation with FTBFS on, say, s390 architectures. Or even issues > with running under whichever init system is not the one the maintainer > personally

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Ximin Luo writes: > Fair enough. I actually spotted that but thought it was better to get > "something" into Policy rather than nitpick. I guess other people were > thinking similar things. Well, lesson learnt, I will be more forceful > next time. > The sentence I amended

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Bill Allombert writes: > I am still concerned that there will be no reliable way for maintainers > to check whether a package is reproducible according to policy before > uploading it to the archive. Ximin answered this, but I also wanted to note that while having such a

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:43:00PM +, Ximin Luo wrote: >> Adrian Bunk: >>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:37:00AM +, Ximin Luo wrote: [..] Fair enough. I actually spotted that but thought it was better to get "something" into Policy rather than nitpick. I

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Bill Allombert: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 07:49:55PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: >> Also what you are saying ("a package that is reproducible according to the >> policy definition must not show up as non-reproducible in tracker/DDPO based >> on results from the reproducible infrastructure") doesnt

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:43:00PM +, Ximin Luo wrote: > Adrian Bunk: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:37:00AM +, Ximin Luo wrote: > >> [..] > >> > >> Fair enough. I actually spotted that but thought it was better to get > >> "something" into Policy rather than nitpick. I guess other people

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:37:00AM +, Ximin Luo wrote: >> [..] >> >> Fair enough. I actually spotted that but thought it was better to get >> "something" into Policy rather than nitpick. I guess other people were >> thinking similar things. Well, lesson learnt, I will be more

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:37:00AM +, Ximin Luo wrote: > Adrian Bunk: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:24:07AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, 11:02 p.m. Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> > >>> Tracker: > >>> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/hsqldb1.8.0 > >>> "Does

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:24:07AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, 11:02 p.m. Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >>> Tracker: >>> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/hsqldb1.8.0 >>> "Does not build reproducibly during testing" >> >> And indeed it's not

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:24:07AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, 11:02 p.m. Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Tracker: > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/hsqldb1.8.0 > > "Does not build reproducibly during testing" > > And indeed it's not reproducible according to

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Bill Allombert: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:00:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Adrian Bunk writes: >> >>> Future policy versions might change this definition, but whatever latest >>> policy states has to be the definition used by both packages and the >>> reproducible builds

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, 11:02 p.m. Adrian Bunk wrote: > Tracker: > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/hsqldb1.8.0 > "Does not build reproducibly during testing" > And indeed it's not reproducible according to policy: it's storing the build user at the very least. > > Let's look at

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 04:01:00PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > This is about the reproducible builds team not using policy as a stick > > for claiming a bar higher than what policy actually defines. > > > > Is it really allowed to claim that a

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Wed, Aug 16 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > This is about the reproducible builds team not using policy as a stick > for claiming a bar higher than what policy actually defines. > > Is it really allowed to claim that a package is not reproducible, > when it actually is reproducible according to

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk writes: > This is not about experimenting for raising the bar in the future. > This is about the reproducible builds team not using policy as a stick > for claiming a bar higher than what policy actually defines. > Is it really allowed to claim that a package is

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:00:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > Future policy versions might change this definition, but whatever latest > > policy states has to be the definition used by both packages and the > > reproducible builds team. > > >

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 07:49:55PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > Also what you are saying ("a package that is reproducible according to the > policy definition must not show up as non-reproducible in tracker/DDPO based > on results from the reproducible infrastructure") doesnt really makes sense:

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:00:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > This in absolutely no way constrains the reproducible build team from > working on raising the bar in the future, just as the absence of this > language from Policy did not prevent them from starting to work on this > problem

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Hello, On Tue, Aug 15 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > >> Future policy versions might change this definition, but whatever >> latest policy states has to be the definition used by both packages >> and the reproducible builds team. > >> Another example is that

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk writes: > Future policy versions might change this definition, but whatever latest > policy states has to be the definition used by both packages and the > reproducible builds team. > Another example is that a package that is reproducible according to the > policy

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:05:29PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Is identical building on any kernel required (and tested)? no and no. it's only required that the results is reproducible, that is bit by bit identical… > Will every reproducible package in buster build identical on the >

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:09:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs > > > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official > > > definition of reproducibility in policy states that this is not required > > > for a

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs > > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official > > definition of reproducibility in policy states

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk writes: > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official > definition of reproducibility in policy states that this is not required > for a package to be reproducible. I believe

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 03:34:35PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >... > +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

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >... > - 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

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:34:35 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst > index 127b125..6e32870 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > @@ -661,6 +661,28 @@ particularly complex or unintuitive source layout or > build system

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 03:34:35PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Here is an updated patch addressing these. I reworded it to use > 'recommended' and changed the tone to better suit policy. > > Thank you Ximin, Russ and Johannes! > > > "precisification" -> "more precise version" > > Our

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, Aug 12 2017, Ximin Luo wrote: > Thanks! Seconded. Just to be clear, we are waiting on one more second for the version that refers to build and target architecture. -- Sean Whitton

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Sean Whitton: > [..] > > Here is an updated patch addressing these. I reworded it to use > 'recommended' and changed the tone to better suit policy. > > Thank you Ximin, Russ and Johannes! > >> "precisification" -> "more precise version" > > Our definition is not actually a /version/ of the >

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Hello, On Sat, Aug 12 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > I suspect we want to say build and host architecture for right now. > (Maybe we can later aspire to making the build architecture not > matter.) On Sat, Aug 12 2017, Ximin Luo wrote: > To echo dkg and others' comments, it would be nice if we

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Johannes Schauer writes: > Policy §4.9 defines "build architecture" in the context of > dpkg-architecture already and I think what you mean here is either "host > architecture" or at least "build and host architecture" or you need to > mention that you are only talking about

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Hi, Quoting Sean Whitton (2017-08-13 03:23:14) > +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

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 01:18:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > +Packages are encouraged to produce bit-for-bit identical binary packages > > even > > +if most environment variables and build paths are varied. This is > > technically > > +more difficult at the time of writing, but it is

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Ximin Luo writes: > To echo dkg and others' comments, it would be nice if we could add here: > +Packages are encouraged to produce bit-for-bit identical binary packages even > +if most environment variables and build paths are varied. This is technically > +more difficult

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Sean Whitton: > 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

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Sean Whitton writes: > 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 >

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Hi, 2017-08-12 14:23 GMT-04:00 Sean Whitton : > control: tag -1 +patch > > This patch incorporates the feedback given on the proposal I sent > yesterday, both in this bug and in person from Russ and Holger (thank > you to all). > seconded, thanks for working on this.

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

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

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

control: tag -1 +patch This patch incorporates the feedback given on the proposal I sent yesterday, both in this bug and in person from Russ and Holger (thank you to all). I am seeking formal seconds for this patch, from any DD. In particular: - for now, we only require reproducibility when