Hi!
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 06:41:19PM -0700, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
I was reviewing one of my own packages on the QA page¹ and was
surprised to notice it gets full marks for CI/Rep. “Surprised? Isn’t
that a good thing?” you say. It’s surprising because I’ve been
tracking an upstream bug that I *know* makes this package’s build not-reproducible. Clicking into the Rep tick mark, I note it’s indeed flagged as not-reproducible. Is the tick mark a mistake? Or am I just
wanting to judge my own package more harshly than CI judges it?
Can you share more details on the bug you know of? Is it related to
build paths?
Varying build paths is not done for builds outside of unstable, and the reproducible builds website exports its data based on testing instead.
The reason is simply because varying build paths causes still way too
many unreproducibility that most single maintainers can do nothing about
(they really require toolchain-wide changes that are slowly happening),
which is way they are "hidden" from the default view you see in DDPO.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me:
https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user:
https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page:
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEi3hoeGwz5cZMTQpICBa54Yx2K60FAmFld7MACgkQCBa54Yx2 K63wMQ//dIenE4SOEMlop+b8m0v3l6oFCu3dS6DyT+kDQvGUrOYa4JnPe8ZTqNkV H08pA1npA0jeCrjSpJFqV5HjF6ouJaFKdNRV4vnR41m9iIZb//pXsVN9N3hwKmEQ aBCkTpIDhVVuyFMbmfCdr3Xmx9CXQeebeJQN3J0GRchuj+ekGXjqoKpVCe5Dt4Sf 6/hAxyzRgW9kFCUCWYa36TVUnrxrXr6UopjxM5XzZXCmzFeQA2nFyvEIBQGg+1Yk BqeDU9J0/zYq1KpWVrHdm9UmJZNvkfNFiCtwVRj89T5PGnh3Qey4A3AqQM1M0VXC OhpH0EPwMNmHNgSC5WXEAiJN6uT6JAaSlRy0y9Vx63R4gWBdXQPOWVC1O+B/NhnY DxCv+oV6gDqgeg042fF5gnTfhvQ024WLPcCLw6k3XsQu3MTH4Gm5r3RS1kT29wV1 BTZpFNjLMQHDW0uehH7bQ49kNc+HOWFjhwZPIs6nC4UUiAGv7hkcom0heFONVqYc rmRwGcb/9a9jPJw+0L8hkVNt1l2UJYvkOsxTVWYqwwh3iG8SpQu