On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 21:15 +0100, David Suárez wrote: > I dunno if something like the attached file could do the job. Let me know what > you think. That is a good start, some thoughts: I think it is probably better to put the reasons on the reproducible builds infrastructure. There you can explain the issues better and in human-readable language. So, no need to include reasons in the JSON. I'm not sure the diffp output is easily understandable for many maintainers. It would be great to get a HTML page for each bad package that provides the deduced reasons and either links to the diffp output or provides the same info in a more human-readable form. It would be great if the tools for comparing package builds and deducing reasons were available in Debian, perhaps in devscripts, so that maintainers could do comparisons themselves. The tools could direct people to write their solutions on the wiki page about this and contribute patches when they find new reasons for non-reproducibility. Some of the reasons look like they might be detectable with lintian, is there a plan for adding those? We have very enthusiastic lintian maintainers at the moment and lintian is widely used. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part