[Qa-jenkins-dev] Bug#914714: Bug#914714: reproducible builds: vary binary-arch and binary-indep vs binary builds

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Ivo,

thanks for filing this bug!

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 05:18:15PM +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Please consider having the first build do separate binary-arch and
> binary-indep builds and having the second build do a full binary build (with
> arch and indep binaries in the same build run).
> 
> Rationale:
> 
> - Some packages might produce different binaries in both of these scenario's.
> - The buildds run separate binary-arch and binary-indep builds, so this brings
>   the reproducible builds infrastructure closer to what is done on the
>   buildds, while still testing the full build (which is probably more common
>   for maintainer uploads, which unfortunately still exist).

that's something I like.

> - Some packages might fail in on of these scenario's, but not in the other.
>   This could happen because the build-deps-{arch,indep} are not correct, or
>   because the build process is different.
> - R-b tests the full build on all architectures that are tested. The
>   binary-indep build on the buildds happens only on amd64, and we generally
>   consider it to be acceptable if arch:all binaries can only be built on some
>   architectures. By separating the builds, packages that fail to build the
>   binary-indep target on some architectures can be clearly identified.

that's something I dont really like. (because it has cognitive and other
costs for us (working on r-b).)

But still, the first quoted block convinced me that it's worthwhile to
do. Just I'm not sure when, so I'd definitly accept patches.

> The process could maybe even be extended somewhat further in the last case.
> For those packages, the second build could run the binary-arch target again.

instead of making our rebuilds in the lab more efficient/complicated,
I'd rather spend time on working rebuilding against the actual debian
archive, based on the published .buildinfo files from these builds.

But this is my POV, if someone wants to implement this, I'd very
probably take those patches.

> That would allow packages to be tested for reproducibility even on
> architectures where the binary-arch (or binary) target doesn't work. Obviously
> this would be more complicated to implement. It also would require a double
> state to keep track of this (FTBFS for binary/binary-indep and a secondary
> state for binary-arch). This is probably only useful if a simple
> implementation shows that this is common.

we btw also need / should check, whether arch:all rebuilds on different
arch have reproducible results...

> Thanks for your work on reproducible builds!

:) Thanks!


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/qa-jenkins-dev/attachments/20181126/f70b2f3b/attachment.sig>