Re: [Reproducible-builds] reproducible build examples

2016-03-30 Thread Reiner Herrmann 
Hi Christian,

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:23:44AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > However, I have problems with the examples:
> > > 
> > > https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsProposal#Examples
> > > 
> > > They do not seem to work for me out of the box (maybe you can provide 
> > > links
> > > to real examples, you are publishing progress reports, shouldn't they make
> > > nice examplees?).
> > 
> > Indeed. That's why there's ???proposed patches??? section with links to bug
> > reports in almost each report.
> 
> I have seen one which simply removed the timestamp from the executable. I do
> not consider that as a solution, it is just a quick and dirty workaround.

I think it depends on the timestamp. In most cases they have no real
meaning/use to the user and there is no harm in removing them. So I
would say removing them where possible is actually a solution.
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH can then be used as a "workaround" when upstream
insists on keeping timestamps or there are other reasons to keep it.

> I don't know how big of a problem this is, if it is worth the effort. But I
> think more documentation, more examples are always good. It took me a while
> to figure this out, only to realize that also the documentation is affected,
> in two different places.
> 
> The webpage was not very helpful at the beginning:
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/gle-graphics.html
>  
> The start page mentions problems which (I though) I had fixed long ago.
> The diffoscope page (not there anymore due to FTBFS?) showed the actual
> problems. It would have been nice, however, if it would have said in big
> letters, that latex can not build reproducible PDFs since a timestamp is
> embedded.

Thanks for fixing the issue mentioned there!
We are reviewing the issues mostly manually. The note in your example
was a bit outdated. We might also not always see _all_ issues in the diff.
Sometimes it is just too large and hides other issues. Perhaps this
was the reason why the PDF issue was not mentioned in the note.
But I just updated it. :)

> So in my last try, I use faketime to generate the documentation,
> which seems to work on my system, but generates an FTBFS on the jenkins
> servers. I think it is this bug (also affects one of the buildds):
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=778462
> 
> Now I m stuck, can I not use faketime to build PDFs? How should I build PDFs
> then? Or is this a bug in the testing servers and I have to wait until they
> are fixed (also the hurd-i386 buildd)?

Yes, we don't recommend the usage of faketime.
I would instead remove the first timestamp in the PDF documentation and
replace the second one with some dummy value.

> I wonder if I can test reproducibility without a full upload, only to
> realize there is another timestamp hidden somewhere.

We have a script called prebuilder, which can be used locally to build
packages twice with different variations [1] [2].
This detects already a lot of issues.

Kind regards,
  Reiner

[1] 
https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/ExperimentalToolchain#Usage_example
[2] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/reproducible/misc.git/tree/prebuilder


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

Re: [Reproducible-builds] reproducible build examples

2016-03-30 Thread Christian T. Steigies 
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:59:08PM +0100, J?r?my Bobbio wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Christian T. Steigies:
> > I am trying to make my packages reproducible, I am trying this since last
> > debconf (but only from time to time). The examples seem to have changed
> > after debconf, but some things are more clear to me now (ie that I can not
> > use a date string).
> 
> Glad to read that! Please use the public
>  mailing list next times:
> others might be more responsive than me. :)

Ok, Cc'ed on this message.
 
> > However, I have problems with the examples:
> > 
> > https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsProposal#Examples
> > 
> > They do not seem to work for me out of the box (maybe you can provide links
> > to real examples, you are publishing progress reports, shouldn't they make
> > nice examplees?).
> 
> Indeed. That's why there's ???proposed patches??? section with links to bug
> reports in almost each report.

I have seen one which simply removed the timestamp from the executable. I do
not consider that as a solution, it is just a quick and dirty workaround.
 
> > Actually, for the python and C example I think it can not
> > work at all, please prove me wrong. To me it seems that the python, perl and
> > C examples are reading SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH from the environment during
> > runtime, not during buildtime. If this variable is not defined, the current
> > time is used, which is not what I would expect if I understand this
> > correctly. Shouldn't the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH be defined during the build and
> > this (static) value be used in the binary?
> 
> The examples are designed for code or documentation generators, not for
> integration in code that is shipped in the end. I'm not sure how we can
> make that clearer.

I don't know how big of a problem this is, if it is worth the effort. But I
think more documentation, more examples are always good. It took me a while
to figure this out, only to realize that also the documentation is affected,
in two different places.

The webpage was not very helpful at the beginning:
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/gle-graphics.html
 
The start page mentions problems which (I though) I had fixed long ago.
The diffoscope page (not there anymore due to FTBFS?) showed the actual
problems. It would have been nice, however, if it would have said in big
letters, that latex can not build reproducible PDFs since a timestamp is
embedded. So in my last try, I use faketime to generate the documentation,
which seems to work on my system, but generates an FTBFS on the jenkins
servers. I think it is this bug (also affects one of the buildds):

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=778462

Now I m stuck, can I not use faketime to build PDFs? How should I build PDFs
then? Or is this a bug in the testing servers and I have to wait until they
are fixed (also the hurd-i386 buildd)?

I wonder if I can test reproducibility without a full upload, only to
realize there is another timestamp hidden somewhere.

thanks,
Christian

___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#819525: diffoscope must use ruby2.3

2016-03-30 Thread Mattia Rizzolo 
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:17:20PM -0400, Holger Levsen wrote:
> package: diffoscope
> version: 51
> severity: important
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 04:39:05AM +, Debian testing autoremoval watch 
> wrote:
> > diffoscope 51 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2016-05-04
> > 
> > It (build-)depends on packages with these RC bugs:
> > 818917: ruby2.2: Replaced by ruby2.3
> 
> we need to fix this. No idea what needs to be done here and #818917
> ain't helpful.


this is not a diffoscope problem.

The real problem is https://bugs.debian.org/815409 which makes
libguestfs FTBFS on mips, which makes the testing migration of
libguestfs impossible, and as such testing (only) is not fixed wrt
ruby2.2 → ruby2.3.

josch did this to show us how is the dep chain of diffoscope→ruby:
https://mister-muffin.de/p/9nxo.png
#815409 is the real bug that needs to be tackle, diffoscope can do
nothing about it (except stop to build-depend on python3-guestfs (that
can be done to avoid removal from testing if qemu/libguestfs is not
fixed in time).

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org  : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds