Re: binutils-dev: included log files introduce reproducibility issues

2020-05-17 Thread Paul Wise
On Sun, 2020-05-17 at 13:12 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Any idea which package this should be filed for? I think this is going to require a bunch of different changes in various places including dpkg-dev, debhelper, reprepro, dak, launchpad and any other apt repos that have an incoming

Re: binutils-dev: included log files introduce reproducibility issues

2020-05-17 Thread Matthias Klose
On 5/17/20 12:58 AM, Chris Lamb wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> There is already the BYHAND (and automatic BYHAND) mechanisms for files >> that get installed outside of pool/ in the Debian apt repository. Each >> one needs support from dak too though. > [..] >> It strikes me that these files are most

Re: binutils-dev: included log files introduce reproducibility issues

2020-05-16 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, 2020-05-16 at 22:58 +, Chris Lamb wrote: > My gut feeling is that this is the avenue we want to explore. Having a > separate mechanism to capture this build-specific metadata would be an > elegant solution and, as you imply, having the logs would have QA > advantages as well as permit

Re: binutils-dev: included log files introduce reproducibility issues

2020-05-16 Thread Chris Lamb
Hi Paul, > There is already the BYHAND (and automatic BYHAND) mechanisms for files > that get installed outside of pool/ in the Debian apt repository. Each > one needs support from dak too though. [..] > It strikes me that these files are most similar to .buildinfo or the > build logs in that

Re: binutils-dev: included log files introduce reproducibility issues

2020-05-15 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:09:23 -0800 Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Exploring avenues to put files like this into some separate artifact for > things that are not reproducible might be one avenue There is already the BYHAND (and automatic BYHAND) mechanisms for files that get installed outside of

Re: binutils-dev: included log files introduce reproducibility issues

2020-02-24 Thread Chris Lamb
Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > Or you could add a override database for files which are expected to differ. > > This is considerably more complicated than running a checksum on the > resulting .deb files and is another opportunity for bugs to lead to > incorrect reproducibility results... I would

Re: binutils-dev: included log files introduce reproducibility issues

2020-02-24 Thread Vagrant Cascadian
On 2020-02-22, Matthias Klose wrote: >> I'm not sure what the rationale for including these test logs in the >> package is, but from a reproducible builds perspective, ideally these >> would simply not be included at all. > > that's not an option. this is all useful information for debugging