Hi Paul, Quoting Paul Gevers (2022-10-13 17:25:36) > On 13-10-2022 14:20, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > > Quoting Paul Gevers (2022-10-13 10:00:42) > >> Please also consider supporting the nodoc build profile. We are aware > >> that nodoc is regularly used in a non-reproducible way (as intended, > >> but with this consequence), so checking for correctness of this > >> profile may be a bit harder. Ideally, using the profile would just > >> make documentation binaries virtually empty. > > > > No. Ideally, using the nodoc profile would make documentation binaries not be > > emitted at all. This then also makes checking for correctness a lot easier > > because then all binary packages built with the nodoc profile will be > > bit-by-bit identical if your source package builds reproducibly. > > Policy [1] says something else: > """ > This option does not change the set of binary packages generated by the > source package, but documentation-only binary packages may be nearly > empty when built with this option. > """ > I suggest you try and get policy updated. > > [1] > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#debian-rules-and-deb-build-options hrm... maybe I misunderstand but I thought your initial mail talked about build profiles (aka DEB_BUILD_PROFILES) and not build options (aka DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS). The policy section you cite is about DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS and not about DEB_BUILD_PROFILES. As far as I know, build profiles are not documented in policy at all yet. The bug for that is https://bugs.debian.org/757760 Am I missing something? Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature