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

Re: Enabling -ffile-prefix-map by default

On 2020-10-15, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2020-10-15, Chris Lamb wrote:
>>> At a quick glance, looks to be 33 packages, many of which were already
>>> identified in by our tags:
>>> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/ftbfs_due_to_f-file-prefix-map_issue.html
>>> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/ffile_prefix_map_passed_to_clang_issue.html
>>> I've just added the missing ones, and will follow-up with bugs and
>>> hopefully patches in the coming weeks. It is a pretty reasonable number
>>> of packages to tackle.
>> Vagrant, can you briefly elaborate on your plan of action here? In
>> particular, at what point do you plan to request enabling
>> -ffile-prefix-map distribution-wide? I can think of a number of
>> potential answers, so would be interested to learn your current
>> intentions.
> I need to follow-up with bug reports for the packages that aren't
> triggered by clang. Was hoping to have that done by now; it's on my
> priority list... I would guess this is in the ballpark of 10-20 more
> bugs. Of course, anyone can file those bug reports...

Ok, submitted 15 patches for those today:


Thanks for the nudge!

One package is still building (seqan2)...

Other than the clang/llvm related packages, there are still 10 packages
that I couldn't successfully build using my reprotest environment with
or without fixfilepath enabled:


It might be worth filing bugs for those without patches, just in case
someone is fixing an unrelated FTBFS issue they could maybe also fix
issues around fixfilepath at the same time... thoughts?

> Once llvm-defaults updates the default clang, I think nearly half of the
> FTBFS issues will likely disappear, so don't think this is worth filing
> for those bugs, presuming llvm-defaults gets updated soon.
> The stupid fix for the remaining packages is to disable this feature for
> a handful of packages, e.g. in debian/rules:
>   DEB_BUILD_MAIN_OPTIONS=reproducible=-fixfilepath,+fixdebugpath
> (or maybe just -fixfilepath, depending on how the dpkg patch lands)

All of the patches I submitted were merely disable fixfilepath, though
they could all use further exploration to find the root cause and a more
ideal fix, but given time constraints and the small number of affected
packages, I figured this was a reasonable short-term workaround.

> So, looking at:
>   https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Can_we_add_support_for_new_default_build_flags_to_dpkg-buildflags.3F
> We're nearly ready to take it to debian-devel for comments...
> I guess, at risk of a small breach of procedure, it would be worth
> starting the conversation on debian-devel *now* even though the
> remaining bugs aren't yet filed just to get the process started (while
> continuing to file the remaining bugs)... to hopefully make it in time
> for bullseye.

If we filed bugs for all the remaining packages other than the
llvm/clang related issues, I'd say we're in a reasonably good position
to move this forward...

live well,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: