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

Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

On Sat, 2015-09-26 at 14:35 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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.)
> So.
> binNMU's are special in that they're linked (in the dak db) to a source
> with a different version than the binary package.

That's not specific to binNMUs.  E.g. linux-latest always builds
binaries with different version numbers from the source.


Ben Hutchings
Any smoothly functioning technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: