Re: mercurial new test packages
Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@orangeseeds.org> writes:
>> Sorry to keep on about this but I still think we are talking past each
>> other. You seem to be conflating and jumping between three separate
>> concerns:
>>
>> * A build that does not non-determistically fail in its testsuite (and
>> thus FTBFS randomly.).
>>
>> * Reliably detecting regressions ("introduce new…").
>>
>> * A bit-for-bit reproducible build - eg. your "test packages
>> unreproducible" note in data/dla-needed.txt when we both agreed that
>> is not a goal of LTS updates.
>>
>> Can you please clarify exactly which are referring to in data/dla-
>> needed.txt?
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear. By "unreproducible" I meant the first option
> above, that is the build fails non-deterministically.
For the record, "Reproducible Build" is defined phrase that means
"bit-for-bit reproducible". See
https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds
I actually think this is unfortunate, as "[un]reproducible bugs" is also a
common phrase, from way before reproducible builds, and refers to bugs
that cause [non-]determistic fails.
Obligatory XKCD reference:
https://xkcd.com/583/
In this specific case the phrase "reproducible build" can easily be
replaced by "reliable build".
On the other hand, if you start talking about "reliable bugs", people
will probably give you strange looks.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: