On 2023-04-17, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2023-04-17, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> On 2023-04-16 15:16, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2023-04-16, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >>> > I have tried adding a simple .sbuildrc defining $build_path to '/build' >>> > to zandonai.d.o. Unfortunately while it more or less does what you want >>> > for the build path, it completely clutter the logs, as any text matching >>> > "build" is now replaced by "<<BUILDDIR>>": >>> > >>> > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gnome-keyring&arch=s390x&ver=42.1-1%2Bb2&stamp=1681671508&raw=0 >>> >>> > >>> > I guess one option is to use a build path unlikely to match any string >>> > from a build log, like with the randomized directory. Something like >>> > "/build/reproducible-path/"? >>> >>> Just for clarity, then the the PKGBUILDIR would end up being >>> /build/reproducible-path/PACKAGE-VERSION ? That works! Or something even >>> shorter ... e.g. /build/path/PACKAGE-VERSION or >>> /build/debian/PACKAGE-VERSION ? Really, the 2nd directory matters >>> little, as long as it is predictible. :) >> >> Yes, setting $build_path to '/build/debian' indeed means that >> PKGBUILDDIR is /build/debian/PACKAGE-VERSION. >> >> Unfortunately the string 'build/debian' appears in a few build logs: >> 0ad > ... >> xtables-addons >> >> Do you have other short suggestions? Do we want to show it has been >> built on a debian buildd? In that case /build/debian-buildd might do it. > > Well, then a verification build using reproducible builds will be > "lying" that it is built on a buildd. :) > > Hrm. "DeBiAn" ? Kind of hard on the eyes. Less ugly, "/build/Debian"? > Still somewhat likely to to have inappropriate matches? "fixedpath"?
To keep the conversation alive ... here is a somewhat opaque one: /build/816a1be80d5f70ba783aadc45020dd41/ ...but an explainable one: the md5sum of "debian-reproducible" Or "reproducible-builds" as: /build/eb1c522c4243d55a168f5c37d9f238ff/ ...in other words (or picking just about any other words), a hash of something not terribly likely to appear in a build log ... :) A shorter hash might be perfectly reasonable too ... it just has to be unlikely to appear in a build log? Obviously, a hash is non-obvious to the reader what the heck this magic hash is... but that is what documentation is for? live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
