Hi!
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 06:41:19PM -0700, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
> I was reviewing one of my own packages on the QA page¹ and was
> surprised to notice it gets full marks for CI/Rep. “Surprised? Isn’t
> that a good thing?” you say. It’s surprising because I’ve been
> tracking an upstream bug that I *know* makes this package’s build
> not-reproducible. Clicking into the Rep tick mark, I note it’s indeed
> flagged as not-reproducible. Is the tick mark a mistake? Or am I just
> wanting to judge my own package more harshly than CI judges it?
Can you share more details on the bug you know of? Is it related to
build paths?
Varying build paths is not done for builds outside of unstable, and the
reproducible builds website exports its data based on testing instead.
The reason is simply because varying build paths causes still way too
many unreproducibility that most single maintainers can do nothing about
(they really require toolchain-wide changes that are slowly happening),
which is way they are "hidden" from the default view you see in DDPO.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature