On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 15:14 -0400, Rémi Rampin wrote:
> 2017-05-02 15:05 EDT, Ghislain Vaillant :
> > Thanks for clarifying. Just out-of-curiosity, why is the tracer
> > restricted to x86?
>
> There is no technical limitation here, I would just have to write the
> system call map [1] for other pla
2017-05-02 15:05 EDT, Ghislain Vaillant :
> Thanks for clarifying. Just out-of-curiosity, why is the tracer
> restricted to x86?
There is no technical limitation here, I would just have to write the
system call map [1] for other platforms (and find a CI service I can
test it on). It might be imple
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 12:55 -0400, Rémi Rampin wrote:
> 2017-05-02 12:11 EDT, Ghislain Vaillant:
> > Do you mean Linux the kernel or the platform? The tracer would not work
> > on a non-Linux kernel such as FreeBSD or the Hurd, am I right?
>
> The tracer requires a Linux kernel, and currently only
2017-05-02 12:11 EDT, Ghislain Vaillant:
> Do you mean Linux the kernel or the platform? The tracer would not work
> on a non-Linux kernel such as FreeBSD or the Hurd, am I right?
The tracer requires a Linux kernel, and currently only supports x86 and x86_64.
> Since the tool itself targets repro
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 09:54 -0400, Rémi Rampin wrote:
> 2017-05-02 05:44 -0400, Ghislain Vaillant:
> > Each tool is registered as a separate download on pip and are versioned
> > separately. Based on that alone, I guess it makes more sense to provide
> > separate source packages too.
>
> Hi, Repro
2017-05-02 05:44 -0400, Ghislain Vaillant:
> Each tool is registered as a separate download on pip and are versioned
> separately. Based on that alone, I guess it makes more sense to provide
> separate source packages too.
Hi, ReproZip author here.
To give some context, the tools are packaged ind
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:59:31PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> Good point. I'll forward your suggestion upstream.
thank you!
:)
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 11:51 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:18:35AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > > and how is it different from zip? (or tar|gzip)
> > > those can also be used to (un)pack reproducible archives…
> >
> > The unpacking step includes fetching the necess
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:18:35AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > and how is it different from zip? (or tar|gzip)
> > those can also be used to (un)pack reproducible archives…
> The unpacking step includes fetching the necessary dependencies, and
> spawning a run of the experiment (locally, or
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 10:07 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:04:48AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > In a nutshell, take a scientific experiment (data + processing
> > pipeline), create a single archive out of it (packing step), and enable
> > a different machine to repr
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:04:48AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> In a nutshell, take a scientific experiment (data + processing
> pipeline), create a single archive out of it (packing step), and enable
> a different machine to reproduce the experiment (unpacking step).
and how is it different
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 09:53 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 10:44:49AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> I still wonder what these tools exactly do, though ;-)
In a nutshell, take a scientific experiment (data + processing
pipeline), create a single archive out of it (packing
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 10:44:49AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > I didnt notice because those two bugs have
> > - an identical upstream URL
> > - an identical description
> > - actually everything identical except for the package name
> TBH, I have been a bit lazy on that one. I could have ma
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 09:31 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> unmerge 860531
>
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 10:18:00AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > > a few days ago you already filed an ITP bug for this package?!!
> >
> > No, reprozip != reprounzip (one is the packer, the other is the
> > unpacke
unmerge 860531
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 10:18:00AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > a few days ago you already filed an ITP bug for this package?!!
> No, reprozip != reprounzip (one is the packer, the other is the
> unpacker).
aha!
I didnt notice because those two bugs have
- an identical ups
forcemerge 861646 860531
thanks
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:19:07AM +0100, Ghislain Antony Vaillant wrote:
> Owner: Ghislain Antony Vaillant
>
> * Package name: reprounzip
a few days ago you already filed an ITP bug for this package?!!
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ghislain Antony Vaillant
* Package name: reprounzip
Version : 1.0.9
Upstream Author : Remi Rampin et al.
* URL : https://www.reprozip.org/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Linux tools for rep
17 matches
Mail list logo
