Re: towards a reproducible forky
On 2025-09-27 17:48:19 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 27-09-2025 17:10, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > > 3. Once we've got the hang of this, block the migration of packages that
> > > build non-reproducible binaries.
> >
> > If they not-reproducability is treated as RC bugs, I think this should
> > only block migration if unstable regressed in comaparison to the version
> > in testing.
>
>
> That's effectively the same as what I propose to do with the hints. I mean,
> contrary to autopkgtest that can regress in a source package in testing
> without a change to said source package, reproducibility doesn't (or maybe
> to be totally correct I should say shouldn't) change. So, I can statically
> create these hints once and that should cover your concern.
No, it does not. One approach requires a human to keep track of the
list, the other approach is automated by tooling. From my point of view
this is a huge concern (and in fact a blocker on turning this on) where
we require a human RT member to keep track of things while the RT is
already understaffed anyway.
I'd expect r.d.n to be able to produce the same information for testing
which then can be checked if a candiated regressed or not.
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: