On 2024-05-22, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 01:21:10PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> I am hoping to schedule some Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMU) sprints,
>> starting with two thursdays from now...
>
> yay!
>
> though I won't be able to join on
I am hoping to schedule some Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMU) sprints,
starting with two thursdays from now...
Planning on meeting on irc.oftc.net in the #debian-reproducible channel
at 17:00UTC and going for an hour or two or three. Feel free to start
early or stay late, or even fix things on some
On 2024-05-06, Bo YU wrote:
> I have one package aemu[0] and its reprotest[1] test failed. However
> from the log online, I did not find any value cluster to fix the
> issue. So I use `reprotest` locally:
My guess would be build paths.
You could use reprotest --auto-build to systematically
On 2024-04-16, Chris Lamb wrote:
> However, I think this first iteration of --hard-timeout time has a few
> things that would need ironing out first, and potentially make it not
> worth implementing:
>
> (1) You suggest it should start again with "--max-container-depth 3",
> but it would surely
Control: block 1038845 by 1001250
On 2023-06-21, bl...@debian.org wrote:
> reprotest is currently referencing /etc/timezone without support for
> /etc/localtime. /etc/timezone is a legacy interface that is Debian
> specific. The cross-distro standard /etc/localtime (as a symlink to
> the
On 2024-04-12, Fay Stegerman wrote:
> * Vagrant Cascadian [2024-04-12 19:29]:
>> On 2024-04-12, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > when installing reprotest 0.7.27:
>> >
>> > SyntaxWarning: invalid escape sequence '\;'
>> > Setting up reprotest (0.7.27) ...
On 2024-04-12, Holger Levsen wrote:
> when installing reprotest 0.7.27:
>
> SyntaxWarning: invalid escape sequence '\;'
> Setting up reprotest (0.7.27) ...
> /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/reprotest/__init__.py:360: SyntaxWarning:
> invalid escape sequence '\;'
> run_or_tee(['sh', '-ec', 'find
On 2024-03-08, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2023-04-12, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> i guess reprotest maybe should grow an option to do
>> --control-build /path/to/packages/
>> --vary=build_path=/use/this/build/path ...
>>to make
On 2016-12-11, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 03:12:57PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> I have sbuild properly set up on my machine, and I want to use it to
>> test package reproducibility. Something like this, where PWD is an
>> unpacked source package:
>>
>> 1) sbuild
>> 2)
On 2024-04-09, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I've now finished the change I had in that branch, which implements
> support so that dpkg-buildpackage can be passed a .dsc or a source-dir,
> and in the former will first extract it, and for both then it will
> change directory to the source tree. If it got
On 2023-04-12, Holger Levsen wrote:
> i guess reprotest maybe should grow an option to do
> --control-build /path/to/packages/
> --vary=build_path=/use/this/build/path ...
>to make it easier to use reprotest to compare against an existing
> build
>YES
>
On 2023-10-12, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 04:59:33PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> On 2023-09-20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > On 19/09/23 at 13:52 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> >> Snapshotting the archive(s) multiple
On 2023-10-12, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> In the meantime, I worked on a naive implementation of this, using
>> debmirror and btrfs snapshots (zfs or xfs are other likely candidates
>> for filesystem-level snapshots). It is working better than I expected!
> […]
>> Currently weighing in at about 550GB,
On 2023-09-30, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2023-09-20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> On 19/09/23 at 13:52 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>> * Looking forward and backwards at snapshots
>>>
>>> I do think that a more complete snapshot approach is probably better
On 2023-09-20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/09/23 at 13:52 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> * Looking forward and backwards at snapshots
>>
>> I do think that a more complete snapshot approach is probably better
>> than package-specific snapshots, and it might be wor
On 2023-09-27, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 12:25:36PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> so I've powercycled the machine and also disabled the armhf workers now.
>> (under the (weak) assumption that this bug is mostly trigged when running
>> diffoscope on 32bit .debs...)
Most
On 2023-09-19, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> * Some actual results!
>
> Testing only arch:all and arch:amd64 .buildinfos, I had decent luck with
> 2023/09/16:
>
> total buildinfos to check: 538
> attempted/building: 535
>
> unreproducible: 28 5 %
> reprodu
I experimented with verification builds building packages that were
recently built by the Debian buildd infrastrcture... relatively soon
after the .buildinfo files are made available, without relying on
snapshot.debian.org... with the goal of getting bit-for-bit identical
verification of newly
Control: tags 1042918 pending
On 2023-08-02, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> I thought we'd managed to avoid this, in #1035645, but we just did the
> transition, and I see reprotest is FTBFS:
...
> py311: commands[0] .pybuild/cpython3_3.11_reprotest/build>
> .tox/py311/bin/python -m coverage r
> un
On 2023-07-27, Peter Blackman wrote:
> I can see qt6ct has been rescheduled. Thanks.
>
> Looks OK on my packages overview, and the tracker,
> but is actually unreproducible!
This is because those only track weather trixie/testing is reproducible,
and unstable and experimental test more
> should be able to click on the triangle of arrows to reschedule)./"
>
> Vagrant Cascadian vagr...@reproducible-builds.org
> Thu Jun 22 18:25:48 BST 2023
> (I was not subscribed at the time)
...
> I have several packages FTBFS from over a month ago. No sign of any
On 2023-06-22, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> 在 2023-06-20星期二的 06:31 +0200，Joachim Zobel写道：
>> I have a FTBFS on all uploads after the end of the freeze. Example:
>> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/gap-aclib.html
>>
>> All these packages had been changed to compat 13.
On 2023-06-17, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 02:08:20PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> From what I recall looking at the log posted in irc it might be
>> sufficient to "apt autoremove usrmerge" after the fact, as usrmerge is
>> not really reve
: the code which was in use (since then) was varying usrmerge
> everywhere except buster & bullseye!
I am confident during the bullseye release cycle it was actually
enabled, and then once it was released it was changed or just not tested
for some reason.
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 09:55:38AM -070
On 2023-06-15, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
>
>> as soon as buildds are merged, varying trixie no longer makes
>> sense to me in either case
> […]
>> so should we stop testing usrmerge variations at all now?
>
> Thanks for taking this to the list. For 100% clarity, I
On 2023-05-09, stefa...@debian.org wrote:
> Hi Vagrant (2023.05.07_00:01:34_+)
>> This patch is trivial and fixes building with tox 4, but unfortunately
>> breaks building with tox 3:
>
> How about this, works on both, by using the multiline syntax:
>
> diff --git a/tox.ini b/tox.ini
> index
and fixes building with tox 4, but unfortunately
breaks building with tox 3:
From 8ee881b36a3578e652cc1693fd047692b1fa3fa9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vagrant Cascadian
Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 16:48:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] tox.ini: Fix build with tox 4 by using comma-separated
values. (Closes:
xfilepath (a.k.a. -ffile-prefix-map) Enabled by default:
dpkg (1.20.6) unstable; urgency=medium
...
* dpkg-buildflags: Enable reproducible=fixfilepath by default. Thanks
to Vagrant Cascadian . See
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/10/msg00222.html.
Closes: #974087
...
-- G
On 2022-06-01, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 08:26:18PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> Zhang Boyang, le dim. 29 mai 2022 14:10:35 +0800, a ecrit:
>> > I found Salsa CI reprotest on my repo fails when "FAKETIME variation:
>> > faketime = [balabala]" is decided. The relevant
Control: found 1029066 230
On 2023-01-17, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hello, your package FTBFS when internet is not available during control file
> regeneration phase
...
> debian/tests/control.sh
> Generating the debian/tests/control file...
...
> ERROR: Could not find a version that
On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2022-10-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> The attached alternate implements this for mc by touching the potential
>> files before running configure with a consistent timestamp.
>>
>> According to my local tests, applying this
First Debian NMU Sprint of 2023... this coming Tuesday, January 10th,
16:00 UTC!
Some past sprints:
https://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/2022-November/002756.html
IRC:
irc.oftc.net #debian-reproducible
Unapplied patches:
On 2022-12-24, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Chris Lamb, le ven. 23 déc. 2022 05:32:47 +, a ecrit:
>> Whilst working on the Reproducible Builds effort [0] we noticed that
>> opari2 could not be built reproducibly.
>>
>> Patch attached that exports CFLAGS from dpkg-buildflags(1), ensuring
>> that
On 2022-11-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Since the previous sprints were fun and productive, I am planning on
> doing NMU sprints every Thursday in December (1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd,
> 29th). We are planning on meeting on irc.oftc.net in the
> #debian-reproducible channel at 17:00U
On 2022-10-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> The attached alternate implements this for mc by touching the potential
> files before running configure with a consistent timestamp.
>
> According to my local tests, applying this patch should make mc build
> reproducibly once it lands in t
Since the previous sprints were fun and productive, I am planning on
doing NMU sprints every Thursday in December (1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd,
29th). We are planning on meeting on irc.oftc.net in the
#debian-reproducible channel at 17:00UTC and going for an hour or two or
three. Feel free to start early
On 2022-11-11, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Can you clarify whether you meant *Wednesday* November 16th or
> Thursday November *17th*? :)
Oops! Thursday November 17th!
live well,
vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Reproducible-builds
On 2022-11-11, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Can you clarify whether you meant *Wednesday* November 16th or
> Thursday November *17th*? :)
Oops! The 17th!
live well,
vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
We were productive and had some fun with the previous NMU sprints:
https://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/2022-September/002689.html
So we are planning on meeting on irc.oftc.net in the
#debian-reproducible channel at 17:00UTC and going for an hour or two or
three.
We
On 2022-11-08, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> > We are planning on meeting on irc.oftc.net in the #debian-reproducible
>> > channel at 16:00UTC and going for an hour or two or three.
>>
>> It was fun, so we hope to do this roughly every two weeks!
>> Next one is thus planned for Thursday, October 6th, 16:00
build path issues tested in unstable and experimental.
It doesn't address the larger issue of files modified by debian/patches
having the current timestamp, which is a much more complicated
intersection of issues.
live well,
vagrant
From 4e69587954d29ec6bfc7d85b4b618724b16b840e Mon Sep 17 00:
On 2022-09-21, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> We are planning on meeting on irc.oftc.net in the #debian-reproducible
> channel at 16:00UTC and going for an hour or two or three.
It was fun, so we hope to do this roughly every two weeks!
Next one is thus planned for Thursday, October 6th, 16:
Holger and I were chatting about doing more Debian NMUs
(Non-Maintainer-Uploads) to clear the huge backlog of reproducible
builds patches submitted... and we may as well get started this
Thursday!
We are planning on meeting on irc.oftc.net in the #debian-reproducible
channel at 16:00UTC and going
On 2022-09-14, Philip Hands wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian writes:
>
>>> but also
>>> (given that the tests will have passed during the normal build) the tests
>>> failing during the varied build seems unlikely to be identifying faults
>>> that are
>>
On 2022-09-14, Philip Hands wrote:
> I suggest adding a 'nocheck' variation, that sets DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck
> during the build,
Sounds reasonable!
> and enabling it by default.
Less sure...
> The reason for doing so is that one could imagine that a package produces
> differing results
On 2022-06-06, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> It's not strictly a *bug* that diffoscope takes a long time, but it is
> curious that the best-effort "--timeout" is not kicking in early enough
> and ensuring that the harsher timeout does not kill diffoscop
On 2022-06-03, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2022-06-04, Roman Lebedev wrote:
>> it would appear, diffoscope is failing when runing agains halide package:
>>
>> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/diffoscope-results/halide.html
>>
>>
On 2022-06-04, Roman Lebedev wrote:
> it would appear, diffoscope is failing when runing agains halide package:
>
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/diffoscope-results/halide.html
>
> Unfortunately, i do not know what the more specific problem is.
Some things
On 2022-02-16, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 at 14:13:10 -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> Obviously, this would interfere with any meaningful reproducible builds
>> testing for any package that did something like this. Ideally metadata
>> like this
On 2022-02-14, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 14:13 -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
>> * Split build metadata into a separate file or archive
>>
>> Some of the debian-installer packages generate tarballs that are not
>> .deb files and are included in the
On 2022-04-28, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> Lately, I've been trying to get a handle on the status of the really
>> core packages in Debian, namely the essential, required and
>> build-essential package sets. The first two are present on nearly every
>> Debian system, and build-essential is the set of
Lately, I've been trying to get a handle on the status of the really
core packages in Debian, namely the essential, required and
build-essential package sets. The first two are present on nearly every
Debian system, and build-essential is the set of packages assumed to be
available whenever you
On 2022-04-18, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> Because of this discrepancy, I created the issue
>> "captures_build_path_in_r_rdb_rds_databases" but I also noticed the
>> description for "randomness_in_r_rdb_rds_databases" mentions that it is
>> the result of a build path:
>>
>> Randomness seems to come
I've noticed nearly all of the packages marked
"randomness_in_r_rdb_rds_databases" actaully appear to be not random at
all, but rather a deterministic result derived from the build path:
~1200 packages that FTBR in unstable:
On 2022-02-03, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Over the last several months, I and others have found quite a few
> packages that embed build paths via rpath when building with cmake. I
> found myself slowly edging into a mass bug filing, one bug report at a
> time...
>
> I ended u
On 2022-03-09, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Reproducible Builds folks
> (2022-03-09):
>> The reproducibility status of the package haveged changed during the
>> continuous testing.
>> See the following notes for more details:
>>
>> 2022-03-08 01:09
>>
A while ago I noticed binutils had some embedded logs in one of it's
packages, which included timing information about the test suite runs
which will almost certainly have differences between the different
builds, even on the exact same machine:
https://bugs.debian.org/950585
My proposed patch
On 2022-02-04, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 04:41:21PM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> Over the last several months, I and others have found quite a few
>> packages that embed build paths via rpath when building with cmake. I
>> found myself slowly edging i
On 2022-02-04, Paul Wise wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
>> Over the last several months, I and others have found quite a few
>> packages that embed build paths via rpath when building with cmake.
>
> This seems like the sort of thing that will be an ongoing problem,
On 2022-02-04, Fab Stz wrote:
> I have a CI job that runs reprotest. The project, at some time, makes calls to
> java. However this fails/crashes sometimes.
>
> By narrowing things down it always crashes when locale kk_KZ.RK1048 is in use.
>
> By searching further I discovered that kk_KZ.RK1048
Over the last several months, I and others have found quite a few
packages that embed build paths via rpath when building with cmake. I
found myself slowly edging into a mass bug filing, one bug report at a
time...
I ended up submitting a few patches and noting some affected packages:
On 2022-01-20, Chris Lamb wrote:
>>> I just noticed a reproducibility issue in a package that transitioned
>>> from dh-perl6 to dh-raku, and it introduced some reproducibility issues
>>> in the raku-tap-harness in precomp files, e.g.:
>>
>> I think this was already briefly discussed in #1002496
>
Hi folks!
I just noticed a reproducibility issue in a package that transitioned
from dh-perl6 to dh-raku, and it introduced some reproducibility issues
in the raku-tap-harness in precomp files, e.g.:
I finally did a reprotest build of systemd on armhf to try and figure
out why it doesn't build reproducibly... but it built reproducibly...
My test did not test building with a 64-bit kernel (it was using a
32-bit kernel in both cases), whereas the tests.reproducible-builds.org
infrastructure
On 2021-12-06, xiao sheng wen(肖盛文) wrote:
> I suggestion set default locales LANGUAGE to C or unset LANGUAGE env.
> At present, it set to en_US:en, this will cause some problems in no en env.
>
> The C LANGUAGE would be the default locales when set it.
> If no vary, not set LANG and
Control: tags 999689 pending
On 2021-11-14, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Fixing #988964 broke the "not need_builddeps" autopkgtest:
> https://ci.debian.net/packages/r/reprotest/unstable/amd64/
>
> It has failed since 0.7.16.
>
> The easy fix is:
> diff --git a/debian/tests/control
On 2021-11-14, Muhammad Hassan wrote:
> I am a researcher at the University of Waterloo, conducting a project
> to study reproducibility issues in Debian packages.
Great to hear!
> The first step for me is to link each Reproducibility-related bug at
> this link:
>
So, we have some reasonable nubmers about actual reproducibility for
Debian bullseye from the "beta" tests; looks to be over 90%
reproducible, which is great considering it is compared against packages
people actually use in the real world!
The "beta" tests wil miss out on toolchain fixes
On 2021-09-16, Frédéric Pierret wrote:
> Le 9/16/21 à 9:34 AM, Holger Levsen a écrit :
>> given that https://debian.notset.fr/rebuild/results/unstable.amd64.html is
>
> May I add also https://debian.notset.fr/rebuild/results/unstable.all.html for
> the "all" arch.
Would it be plausible to get a
On 2021-08-30, Christopher Talbot wrote:
> Debian Salsa seems to fail reprotest due to different compile times.
...
> One recent example is here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/DebianOnMobile-team/vvmd/-/pipelines/283265
>
> When looking at the debs with diffoscope, I get example output like
> below
On 2021-08-30, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:16:40PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> there are currently several reproducible-only build failures due to
>> export LANG="C" in the first build.
>>
>> Would it be OK to set LANG to C.UTF-8 or en_US.UTF-8 in the first build
>>
On 2021-08-17, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 03:35:05PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> > On 2021-08-10 Holger Levsen > > public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Isn't CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH a rather strange choice, what are the expected
>> > benefits over
On 2021-08-17, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 12:16:39AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> The failure mode we have sometimes seen is packages that were built in
>> a merged-/usr chroot not working on a non-merged-/usr system, although
>> that's detected by the reproducible-builds
On 2021-07-23, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Otto, thank you for your enthusiasm towards getting this package
> reproducible. It's clear from re-reading the issue on the GitHub issue
> for Mroonga how much you want to solve this.
...
>> Pretty sure this is the zeroed-out build path length getting embedded
On 2021-07-21, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> We still have one issue in MariaDB to solve to have the whole package
> fully reproducible:
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/experimental/amd64/diffoscope-results/mariadb-10.5.html
>
> Chris Lamb looked into this in Feb 2020[1] and we
On 2021-07-15, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2018-11-19, Niko Tyni wrote:
>> Diffoscoping a perl built on a usrmerged [1] system with
>> one built on a non-usrmerged system reveals the configure
>> process hardcoding some paths in the build results,
>>
>> [1]
r/include/x86_64-linux-gnu /usr/lib /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu /lib/../lib
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu /usr/lib/../lib /lib /lib64 /usr/lib64'
Still an issue. Probably inherited from libpth...
live well,
vagrant
From 1a0d653ef6fdbaa136625e1251493a3d918e78f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vagrant
Control: tags 988964 +patch
On 2021-05-25, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:33:42PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> > Yes, just confirmed that it gets added through python3:Depends.
>> >
>> > So, I presume it will require mangling python3:Depen
On 2021-06-08, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> On 6/8/21 3:40 AM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> On 2021-06-08, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>>> I was trying to make "brian" package reproducible. To my understanding it
>>> has two problems:
>>> * Only _some_ files in the
On 2021-06-08, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> I was trying to make "brian" package reproducible. To my understanding it has
> two problems:
>
> * use datetime.date.today() and similar stuff for build documentation - I
> suppose I fixed these with using SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
Your fixes look reasonable; just
On 2021-05-21, John Scott wrote:
> On my system, reprotest has the following Depends/Recommends:
> Depends: diffoscope (>= 112~), python3-distro, python3-rstr, python3:any,
> python3-debian, apt-utils, libdpkg-perl, procps, python3-pkg-resources
> Recommends: disorderfs, faketime, locales-all,
On 2021-05-20, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> On triggering the salsa pipeline for prime-phylo on salsa, the
> reprotest job fails[1]
> There is a difference in the debug symbols .debs
>
> On taking a look at both debdiff and diffoscope, it seems (to me) that it is a
> buildpath issue, and I checked if
On 2021-03-31, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 11:31:51AM +0100, Frédéric Pierret wrote:
> I'm not sure if you are aware of https://github.com/fepitre/snapshot-mirror
> which is Frédéric's project to create a partial snaphot.d.o mirror so that
> we can continue our work on
On 2021-03-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2021-02-08, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> On 2021-01-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>> On 2020-12-07, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>>> The percentage of packages that are reproducible admittedly doesn't look
>>>>
On 2021-02-08, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2021-01-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> On 2020-12-07, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>> The percentage of packages that are reproducible admittedly doesn't look
>>> amazing, even though there has been steady progress:
>>&g
On 2021-02-27, Holger Levsen wrote:
> snapshot.debian.org is an awesome service for the wider free software
> community
> and especially for those working on reproducible builds. Sadly accessing
> *many*
> packages from it is limited and troublesome (see below for bug numbers), thus
> we (mostly
On 2021-01-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2020-12-07, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> I just wanted to spend a few moments looking over the progress
>> Reproducible Builds has made in Debian over the last few release cycles.
>
> We've had some good progress since last month
On 2021-01-09, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> Note: in case we do not agree on this topic this will be the text I'll
> send to the
> tech-ctte.
Thanks for taking the time to draft some text. If we can come closer to
agreement on the proposed text, that would probably take a bit of
On 2021-01-09, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> Oh, I have sadly forgotten to mention another thing.
>
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 at 15:53, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> wrote:
>> # __FILE__ is a public, well defined API
>
> According to:
> Adrian Bunks mentions it in
>
On 2021-01-08, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 21:15, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> wrote:
> In fact most of those packages would not be unreproducible if the
> environment would be the same as the original build. That includes the
> build path.
True,
On 2021-01-08, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 17:40, Vagrant Cascadian
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-11-13, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> > On 2020-10-27, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> >> Though, of course, identifying
On 2020-12-07, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> I just wanted to spend a few moments looking over the progress
> Reproducible Builds has made in Debian over the last few release cycles.
We've had some good progress since last month!
> The percentage of packages that are reproducible a
On 2020-12-28, Nick Black wrote:
> Hey there Reproducible Builds team!
>
> I'd like to make my package "notcurses" reproducible. First off,
> I love the interface at
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/notcurses.html,
> the clearest output I've seen yet from
On 2020-12-27, John Scott wrote:
> I recall having seen something about this somewhere (wiki?) but haven't found
> it. If it's still possible for maintainers to sign up for notifications when
> reproducibility of their packages regress, I'm very much interested.
>
> If you go off package names
On 2020-12-18, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 12:53:53PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > yet also see value in keeping history a little easier to
>> > reach than grepping through git logs.
>>
>> right.
>>
>> you also said on irc:
>>
>> "please wait at least until packages are
I've often quietly wondered about maintenance of our
"reproducible-notes" issues, and was recently reminded by:
Remove -ffile-prefix-map tags from packages that do now build
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reproducible-notes/-/commit/25e7569e394fb4cf882c30690d26d8da1d8decc4
I
I just wanted to spend a few moments looking over the progress
Reproducible Builds has made in Debian over the last few release cycles.
The percentage of packages that are reproducible admittedly doesn't look
amazing, even though there has been steady progress:
stretch 93.8%
buster 94.1%
We will set aside some time to be available for asking questions about
anything related to Reproducible Builds.
This is an opportunity to ask introductory questions and is intended to
be welcoming to newcomers, though of course, any questions relating to
Reproducible Builds should be fair game!
On 2019-03-05, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I ran Chris's script again on coccia, with the result that currently
> 6084 source packages in the archive need a rebuild for reproducible
> builds, as they were built with an old dpkg version not producing
> .buildinfo files.
I ran it just now, and we're
Hi!
We are experimenting with setting aside some time to be available for
asking questions about anything related to Reproducible Builds.
This is an opportunity to ask introductory questions and is intended to
be welcoming to newcomers, though of course, any questions relating to
Reproducible
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
