Re: [Reproducible-builds] [Reproducible] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > I dont think doing thousands of sourceful uploads is realistic nor useful Now that we have source-only uploads, it should be fairly easy to do on a fast network. Just a for loop around apt-get source, dch, debuild -S, debsign, dupload. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise ___ 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] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility
Hi! On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 10:32:08 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > On 24/02/16 22:16, Niels Thykier wrote: > > >- Possible lack of buildd resources to do the rebuild. Notably, due > > > to Multi-Arch:same we would generally need to do the rebuild on all > > > architectures. > > FWIW, that would be solved with #758616. > > this bug doesnt look like it will be fixed anytime soon. (Also I'm not > convinced the bug this one is blocked by (#681289: "changelog and copyright > should be metadata") will really be implemented as suggested.) Actually I've got code implementing the change in principle, I just need to write the functional test cases. But recently I realized that it might potentially get in the way of fixing a bug I found in the current refcounting. :/ So I'll need to check that first. I can take some time to publish more details if there's interest. Thanks, Guillem ___ 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] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:10:38 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Mittwoch, 9. März 2016, Julien Cristau wrote: > > Most source packages that build both arch:all and arch-dependent > > packages will be affected, I believe. Enough that for all practical > > purposes, an arch:all binNMU means making things uninstallable, so is a > > big no-no. > > IOW: if a source package builds an arch:all package, it cannot be binNMUed? > The arch-specific bits can be binNMUed. The arch:all bits can't. Cheers, Julien ___ 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] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility
Hi, On Mittwoch, 9. März 2016, Julien Cristau wrote: > Most source packages that build both arch:all and arch-dependent > packages will be affected, I believe. Enough that for all practical > purposes, an arch:all binNMU means making things uninstallable, so is a > big no-no. IOW: if a source package builds an arch:all package, it cannot be binNMUed? cheers, Holger, puzzled signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:24:44 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On the arch:all rebuild-ability
> > ===
> >
> > Rebuilding arch:all packages currently requires manual uploads of all
> > packages. While we have "arch:all" buildds, we do *not* have support
> > for binNMUing arch:all packages in general. A very limiting factor is
> > the substvar handling, which assumes that the version of the arch:all
> > package does not change during binNMUs (e.g. by using ${source:Version}).
>
> ouch. Big ouch. Does that affect all "arch:all" packages or only some? If the
> latter, how many approximatly?
>
Most source packages that build both arch:all and arch-dependent
packages will be affected, I believe. Enough that for all practical
purposes, an arch:all binNMU means making things uninstallable, so is a
big no-no.
Cheers,
Julien
___
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] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility
Hi, On Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 24/02/16 22:16, Niels Thykier wrote: > >- Possible lack of buildd resources to do the rebuild. Notably, due > > to Multi-Arch:same we would generally need to do the rebuild on all > > architectures. > FWIW, that would be solved with #758616. this bug doesnt look like it will be fixed anytime soon. (Also I'm not convinced the bug this one is blocked by (#681289: "changelog and copyright should be metadata") will really be implemented as suggested.) cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2016, Niels Thykier wrote:
> The topic of rebuilding all of Stretch to make it self-contained (IRT to
> reproducibility) was brought up on the release IRC meeting today (topic
> originally proposed in [1]). The highlights:
> * To my knowledge, only people from the release team were present.
>- The meeting minutes are available at [2].
>
thanks for having this discussion and forwarding it to us! Much appreciated.
> * We had at least 3 concerns brought up:
>- Possible lack of buildd resources to do the rebuild. Notably, due
> to Multi-Arch:same we would generally need to do the rebuild on all
> architectures.
>- In our current infrastructure, arch:all packages cannot trivially
> be rebuilt.
>- Build-dependency loops would need to be handled somehow.
I think you've been discussing topics which are not that relevant yet…:
> * At this point, we do *not* think it is feasible to do a full rebuild
>of the archive for Stretch to make it self-contained (IRT to
>reproducibility).
and this is mostly because we are not there yet: "85%" might sound impressive,
but have a look at
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/unstable/amd64/pkg_set_key_packages.html
and you will see that we still have >500 source packages to fix for the key
packages alone.
We won't reach this for Stretch and so Stretch *cannot be* self contained
reproducible.
Even "just" achieving this for
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/unstable/amd64/pkg_set_build-essential-
depends.html
seems unlikely to me.
> * We are currently (also) awaiting better dak support so we know what
>the support of .buildinfo etc. will be like.
Yup, that's really the big thing we are waiting for (tracked as #763822 titled
"ftp.debian.org: please include .buildinfo file in the archive"), besides a
dpkg which can produce reproducible binary packages and which generates
.buildinfo files.
And once we have that, we'll have 0% (zero) reproducible packages in Debian.
Then we will need rebuilds *of everything*, so that we'll get packages with
.buildinfo files into the archive.
And then we'll the problems described at the beginning (eg "In our current
infrastructure, arch:all packages cannot trivially be rebuilt.") - and I agree
it's good to start discussing this now.
But this is not for making "Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility" but
just for "making Stretch partly reproducible somehow" ;-)
Obviously I might miss something as well, but this is my understanding of
where we're at regarding reproducible Stretch.
> Please note that we may /not/ have fleshed out all problems during the
> meeting.
>
>
> On the arch:all rebuild-ability
> ===
>
> Rebuilding arch:all packages currently requires manual uploads of all
> packages. While we have "arch:all" buildds, we do *not* have support
> for binNMUing arch:all packages in general. A very limiting factor is
> the substvar handling, which assumes that the version of the arch:all
> package does not change during binNMUs (e.g. by using ${source:Version}).
ouch. Big ouch. Does that affect all "arch:all" packages or only some? If the
latter, how many approximatly?
I dont think doing thousands of sourceful uploads is realistic nor useful, but
*if* we have to do that, we should think about also including fixes which will
allow arch:all binNMUs in future.
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
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] On making Stretch self-contained IRT to reproducibility
On 24/02/16 22:16, Niels Thykier wrote: >- Possible lack of buildd resources to do the rebuild. Notably, due > to Multi-Arch:same we would generally need to do the rebuild on all > architectures. FWIW, that would be solved with #758616. The rest of the issues would still need to be addressed somehow. Cheers, Emilio ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
