[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Raising the severity of reproduciblity issues to "important"


On 2015-08-24 22:12, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> [...]
> Same here, in my view reproducibility is a 'nice to have' it should
> *never* be forced on a package.
> We are in the business of packaging upstream software for
> distribution. We should not make arbitrary changes to upstream
> software, such as changing the way a date is added to a man page, just
> to make the build reproducible.

Are you aware that 37 out of 40 of your packages can currently be build
reproducible in unstable using the patched toolchain (e.g. dpkg and
debhelper).  This (I presume) is without you having done anything to
make them explicitly reproducible.

>> [...]
>> We all want Debian to build reproducibly
> Do we?

I think it was a figure of speech.

The extended version: A substantial part of the developer body seems to
be positive about it.  It seems that external parties are also quite
interested in this effort. Core Infrastructure Initiative donated
200,000 US dollars to support the reproducibility effort.

> Personally I'd rather stay true to the upstream.

Reproducibility is not mutually exclusive with following upstream.  Many
developers have forwarded patches upstream - which I hope you will
consider doing, so our upstreams will benefit from these improvements as


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: