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

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:56:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > But once we are able to trigger a rebuild with sourceful NMUs, as
> > Ubuntu does, binNMUs will hopefully be a thing of the past.
> Amusingly, the way we do it in Ubuntu is a huge hassle in some cases,
> and at least some of us would rather have binNMUs.  (That's partly
> because it's a manual process; if it were automated it would be better,
> but it still wouldn't solve the problem that in some cases you really do
> want to do single-architecture rebuilds without having to rebuild a
> stack of packages on slower architectures entirely unnecessarily.  Hi,
> Haskell.)


binNMU's are special in that they're linked (in the dak db) to a source
with a different version than the binary package. My point was, really,
that we could change the "special" feature of a binNMU so that it isn't
linked to a souce with a different version anymore, but instead so that
the source version of architecture X doesn't necessarily need to
correspond to the source version of architecture Y. In effect, that
would result in sourceful architecture-specific uploads rather than

Of course, that doesn't fix the multiarch problem, but it does fix the
reproducible build issue.

It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer

  -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26

Reply to: