Hi, On 2015-08-24 22:12, Colin Tuckley wrote: > [...] > Same here, in my view reproducibility is a 'nice to have' it should > *never* be forced on a package. > > We are in the business of packaging upstream software for > distribution. We should not make arbitrary changes to upstream > software, such as changing the way a date is added to a man page, just > to make the build reproducible. > Are you aware that 37 out of 40 of your packages can currently be build reproducible in unstable using the patched toolchain (e.g. dpkg and debhelper). This (I presume) is without you having done anything to make them explicitly reproducible. >> [...] >> We all want Debian to build reproducibly > > Do we? I think it was a figure of speech. The extended version: A substantial part of the developer body seems to be positive about it. It seems that external parties are also quite interested in this effort. Core Infrastructure Initiative donated 200,000 US dollars to support the reproducibility effort. > Personally I'd rather stay true to the upstream. > Reproducibility is not mutually exclusive with following upstream. Many developers have forwarded patches upstream - which I hope you will consider doing, so our upstreams will benefit from these improvements as well. Thanks, ~Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature