Debian Bug report logs - #923290
ddpo: Please distinguish reproduible state between sid/testing

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Display info messages

Message #5 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Guillem Jover <[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Subject: ddpo: Please distinguish reproduible state between sid/testing

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 22:53:36 +0100

Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
User: [email protected]
Usertags: ddpo
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected]

Hi!

The reproducible build state is currently only provided for «testing»,
because «sid» contains additional checks that are deemed would annoy
maintainers.

I've been aware of this in the past, but was still caught off guard
when checking my DDPO page and seeing that inetutils was still marked
as non-reproducible, even though the tests for sid said it was. And
thought there was some stale data going on.


I think it would be ideal if the reproducible states was shown
explicitly for both testing and sid, even though for now the sid
column would just print a sigil for N/A data (‘-’? with an alt text
mentioning the suite), this would make the information immediately
obvious. Also I think that in the future the reproducible people
might want to expose the state for sid too, at which point the N/A
marker can just be switched to provide the actual state.

Thanks,
Guillem

Message #10 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Holger Levsen <[email protected]>

To: Guillem Jover <[email protected]>, [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Re: Bug#923290: ddpo: Please distinguish reproduible state between sid/testing

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:15:59 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Guillem,

thanks for this bug report and X-Debbugs-Cc:ing us!

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:53:36PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The reproducible build state is currently only provided for «testing»,
> because «sid» contains additional checks that are deemed would annoy
> maintainers.
 
the problem with the unreproducibility issues in unstable currently is
that they are mostly unactionable as the way forward for build path
issues is not yet clear. thus such warnings can and will be seen as annoying.

> I've been aware of this in the past, but was still caught off guard
> when checking my DDPO page and seeing that inetutils was still marked
> as non-reproducible, even though the tests for sid said it was. And
> thought there was some stale data going on.

basically currently we are only targetting testing/buster with our
efforts.

> I think it would be ideal if the reproducible states was shown
> explicitly for both testing and sid, even though for now the sid
> column would just print a sigil for N/A data (‘-’? with an alt text
> mentioning the suite), this would make the information immediately
> obvious. Also I think that in the future the reproducible people
> might want to expose the state for sid too, at which point the N/A
> marker can just be switched to provide the actual state.

I'm not sure N/A will be less confusing as we do have data for
unstable.. but maybe thats a way forward.


-- 
tschau,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eddie Debra <[email protected]>

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Subject: Hallo

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:41:15 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hallo,

Ich habe dir eine Mail geschickt, aber keine Antwort von dir, warum?

Eddie

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.