Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Bug#852821: Dropping Built-For-Profiles is risky"):
> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 15:58:30 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This significantly reduces the amount of information available to
> > understand why a .deb might be the way it is. It also inhibits the
> > ability of the archive to reject oddly-built binaries.
>
> Not really. This information has been provided in the .changes file
> (which is not exposed by the Debian archive), and recently by the
> .buildinfo file, which is supposed to be made publicly available.
> So the archive software should have (had) enough information to reject
> uploads built with any build-profile.
Thanks. I'm somewhat reassured.
> So, I did canvas opinions on the #debian-dpkg IRC channel, and people
> seemed fine with the idea.
I think IRC channels are an excellent way to get unblocked if stuck by
some issue which someone can perhaps help with, or to sort out a
conversation which needs some higher-bandwidth to-and-fro. They can
also be a good way to find who to talk to about something, or to find
someone to deal with an urgent problem.
They are a very bad way of canvassing review of design changes.
> It also makes reproducible builds and other
> QA and porting efforts more useful. I could have certainly brought this
> up on the list, but TBH as it seemed pretty uncontroversial, that's
> why I didn't end up doing that. OTOH designing and implementing any
> kind of dirty/clean profile tracking seems more controversial as was
> seen on the d-d thread, and would have meant pretty much blocking
> progress on this issue for longer, and it also really seems tangential
> to the topic of dropping the field.
I thought we had a pretty good answer to how to do dirty/clean
profiles.
Anyway, thanks for your attention. Please feel free to close this
bug.
Ian.
