Hi, On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 09:36:00PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > This isn't fun-spoiling, it's a useful reality check. But if we were > required to get all the way to 100% before we made any progress, then > reproducible builds wouldn't have gotten off the ground at all.
it's surely progress on the gcc/clang side of things but dropping the
build path from the .buildinfo files would be a huge step *backwards*
for reproducibility…
> The changes proposed in this bug report are a good step that should
> handle a very large proportion of the debian archive. The fact that
> there will remain corners of the archive that need additional work is
> fine: we can turn our attention to the remaining 20% once we get 80% of
> the buildpaths resolved.
true.
my point was: I think we still need the build path in the .buildinfo files.
(And btw, this (build path in buildinfo files) is not what *this* bug report
is about. but it's related.)
Also, c/c++ packages today only make up a small portion of the archive.
Probably this famous someone should do a rebuild of the archive, using
our toolchain (and this patch), using arbitrary build pathes.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
