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

Bug#785531: marked as done (please use /reproducible-tracker.json as datasource)

Your message dated Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:22:35 +0200
with message-id <201507230922.37529.holger@layer-acht.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#785531: please use /reproducible-tracker.json as datasource
has caused the Debian Bug report #785531,
regarding please use /reproducible-tracker.json as datasource
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

785531: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=785531
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
package: tracker.debian.org
x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org


(this is somewhat a followup of #781517.)

please don't show a package as unreproducible and requiring action if its 
reproducible in sid. For example, https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pxz was made 
reproducible yesterday in sid, so the information that it's unreproducible in 
testing is pretty meaningless and certainly doesnt require any action from the 

(If a package is fixed in experimental, I'd still display the note though.)

(OTOH if a package FTBFS in testing (or any suite), I think this is useful to 
indicate this now. My point is, to usually ignore testing results except for 

Thanks for maintaining tracker.d.o!


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

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---

On Donnerstag, 23. Juli 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I'm not sure "we" will ever care about those, as in, I rather envision a
> > future where unreproducible packages are not part of testing nor stable…
> The problem is that an upload to stable could introduce
> unreproducibility and we should catch that.

Well, sure, but atm we lack 90% of the architectures Debian provides. So IMO 
we need to find a solution for those 90% before it makes much sense to think 
about stable...

> I guess a future where the
> archive enforces reproducibility is what we want.


> > To say it differently: I'm not sure reproducible-tracker.json will be the
> > data source in the future...
> Ok.
> > it does! Now I just wonder whether to reassign this bug to qa.d.o (and
> > usertag it jenkins.d.n) or keep it here... (or maybe close and file a
> > new one?)
> Lets close and start again.

ok, closing.


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

--- End Message ---

Reply to: