Guillem,
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 20:26:41 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> > Also, where signature files are desired, I think it would be beneficial
> to
> > also accept binary ".sig" files...
>
> There is no need for
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
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
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 03:34:35PM -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 @@
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
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
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
Adrian Bunk writes:
> I hereby oppose the addition of this to policy.
> It is not true that this would be "Debian's precisification" of
> reproducible builds.
> The definition does not match any past, present or future practice in
> Debian.
> Including the people who want this
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
Bill Allombert writes:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:14:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If you have specific wording suggestions that you believe would bring
>> this Policy requirement closer in line with what we're already doing in
>> the project (and which has gotten us
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
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:30:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As Policy Editor (a delegated position), based on my read of project
> consensus including in-person verification of that consensus at DebConf
> 17, I am formally declaring that I believe this change has consensus
> despite your
Bill Allombert writes:
> This is one of the reasons I do not attend DebConf anymore. We are an
> online organization. Consultation should happen online. Metting are nice
> but they should not be used to vet consensus and ignore absentees.
> So I object to Adrian being
Just to be completely, 100% clear: I will not be responding further to
this line of argument in this bug. If you disagree with my decision as a
project delegate, I've spelled out your possible next steps under Debian's
governance process.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
> But as a technical document, it is lacking practical recommendation
> for maintainers how to make sure their package build reproducibly
The practical recommendations for maintainers are encoded separately, as
they're evolving. See
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
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:30:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>...
> This text is a formalization and simplification of existing practice that
> we worked out in conjuction with the reproducible builds team and that
> strikes a balance between attempting to enumerate all the causes of
>
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
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
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
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
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.
>
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:14:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If you have specific wording suggestions that you believe would bring this
> Policy requirement closer in line with what we're already doing in the
> project (and which has gotten us to 94% reproducible already), please make
> them.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:19:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > But as a technical document, it is lacking practical recommendation
> > for maintainers how to make sure their package build reproducibly
>
> The practical recommendations for
26 matches
Mail list logo