On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:17:18AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > > 2. Integrate all intermediate products from incoming into the archive. > > Given that incoming could hold multiple package version between a > > dinstall I think that would mean adding all of them to the archive and > > keep them for at least a dinstall. Again not sure about the technical > > details but maybe dinstall could clean up old packages first and then > > add new ones from incoming. > I'd strongly prefer that in addition, I think. But the nature of snapshot > means that it'd need to be a full archive, so maybe that would only work for > ingesting packages, not archive files. that's a different implementation than what Jochen suggested.
> > Note that this bug is this is quiet a problem, we currently have 190 > > source packages in arch:all that can't be reproduced and we can't binNMU > > easily: > > https://all.reproduce.debian.net/stats/#packages-missing-on-metasnap-(maybe-temporary) > > So maybe the step backward would actually be a step in the right > > direction till we can solve this in a better way? > I disagree with this. Reproducible builds, as important as they are, should > not hold back Debian development velocity. I agree that Reproducible builds should not hold back Debian development velocity but I don't think they have to. We just need a way to publish incoming, which I think we need to do anyway. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ “Bitcoin was supposed to demonstrate the power of a true free market. Instead it's full of scams, rent-seekers, theft, useless for real purchases and accelerates climate change. Mission accomplished.” Adam Chalmers (@adam_chal)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
