Re: Tainted builds (was Re: usrmerge -- plan B?)
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:07:46AM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:02:07PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:48:32PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > > Would you be willing to also implement
> > > Tainted-By: not-built-in-a-chroot
> > > ?
> > What do you want to do with that? Even our own stuff not always uses
> > chroot, why should it?
> The idea here is to record facts about the system where a package was
> built. Building in a merged-/usr system does not necessarily produce a
> broken package. Not building in a chroot is also not necessarily a
> problem, but still, we want to know that.
> Now, as Andrey points out, nowdays a chroot is not the only type of
> minimal system where one can build packages, so maybe a more
> sophisticated check would be required.
"Only Essential: yes and direct build dependencies installed"? Why not
extend .buildinfo with the list of all packages installed that aren't
Essential:yes or build dependencies?