From chris at reproducible-builds.org Tue Apr 2 12:07:17 2024 From: chris at reproducible-builds.org (Chris Lamb) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 12:07:17 +0100 Subject: [Debian-salsa-ci] Two questions about build-path reproducibility in Debian In-Reply-To: References: <871q8xrd4j.fsf@contorta> <17305.1709581927@hop.toad.com> <87wmqhwx0w.fsf@contorta> <5e203b4a-048b-4a3e-9e31-11e16d022839@app.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <564afe4b-3106-4c56-adc3-4574d34be975@app.fastmail.com> James Addison wrote: > None of the remaining thirty-or-so (and in fact, none of the 66 updated so far) > are usertagged both 'buildpath' and 'toolchain'. > > I would say that a few of them _are_ 'toolchain packages' -- mono, binutils-dev > and a few others -- but for these bugs the buildpath issues are internal to > each package at build-time and do not affect the construction of other > packages in their ecosystem. You are absolutely right to distinguish between a package that is itself unreproducible and a package that is causing other packages to be unreproducible. These are very much orthogonal concepts as you imply, and a package can certainly be in both categories at once. What might be confusing to folks is that our "toolchain" usertag in the Debian BTS does not refer to a toolchain *package* in the usual, Debian sense, i.e. Mono, libc, Bison, documentation generators and so on. But rather that (loosely speaking) "if this usertag is applied to a bug, its denoting that that particular *bug* is affecting the reproducibility of other packages." Unfortunately, the tag is actually an excellent example of that general trend in tech where something was badly named in the spur of the moment, and then the name just sticks around forever due to some combination of muscle memory, inertia and, frankly, priority: as in, this metadata is not *all* that visible nor A++ important to begin with? outside of threads like this. :) Best wishes, -- o ? ? Chris Lamb o o reproducible-builds.org ? ? ? o