Re: tech-ctte: more on merged-/usr
On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 at 11:34:36 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I personally agree that buildds should stay unmerged-/usr until the known
> bugs that would be triggered by merged-/usr buildds have been raised to
> RC severity, though. #992645 is a typical example. I'll try to have a look
> at those bugs today.
I've now gone through
https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?user=reproducible-builds%40lists.alioth.debian.org&tag=usrmerge,
https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?user=md%40linux.it&tag=usrmerge
and
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/paths_vary_due_to_usrmerge_issue.html
and raised severity as follows:
* most bugs: escalated to serious with #994388 as justification
* bugs only affecting example files: left as non-RC
* ypserv #983138, pkg-config #992620: left as non-RC for now, with a
comment that I am unsure whether they should be RC or not
(better-informed opinions welcome)
I haven't investigated whether the unreproducibility in gcc-arm-none-eabi,
gcc-mingw-w64 and gcc-sh-elf is serious: these packages are too large for
the reproducible-builds infrastructure to run diffoscope successfully.
It would be great if someone with the necessary computational resources
to inspect these packages, or someone with better knowledge of gcc
internals, could do so. I suspect they will be in the same situation as
gcc-riscv64-unknown-elf and gcc-xtensa-lx106 (RC-buggy).
Thanks,
smcv
Reply to: