From officenf at ddguizhou.com Wed Apr 16 16:25:39 2025 From: officenf at ddguizhou.com (Alexander Bauer) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:25:39 +0200 Subject: DDP Global Reach: Expand Your Portfolio with a Niche High-Performance E-Bike Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smcv at debian.org Wed Apr 16 19:27:20 2025 From: smcv at debian.org (Simon McVittie) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 19:27:20 +0100 Subject: Bug#786644: should reproducible builds vary nocheck? In-Reply-To: References: <20150523213551.GA6014@alf.mars> <20150523213551.GA6014@alf.mars> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 at 20:47:47 +0000, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: >(Packages that ship test results/tools and >want to make this optional are probably supposed to use >DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=noinsttest instead.) For the record: For packages that ship test tools (automated tests, manual tests or examples to be run at a later time), and want to make them optional, yes they are supposed to use DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=noinsttest instead of nocheck. For example, gtk4 and libsdl3 implement this correctly, to the best of my ability; so do dbus and glib2.0, which have more complicated interactions with other build profiles like nocheck. For packages that ship test *results*, the recommendation is "don't" (because in practice it's very rare for them to be reproducible) and this is out-of-scope for DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=noinsttest. and are a possible solution to that, which I should pick up and revisit at some point (it's on my list but my list is very long). smcv From holger at layer-acht.org Wed Apr 16 19:44:12 2025 From: holger at layer-acht.org (Holger Levsen) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 18:44:12 +0000 Subject: Bug#786644: Bug#1019742: should reproducible builds vary nocheck? In-Reply-To: References: <166316400402.2181604.1010187626675402496.reportbug@rummy.hk.hands.com> <20150523213551.GA6014@alf.mars> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 08:47:47PM +0000, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > Should we merge #786644 and #1019742? Or should we consider #1019742 to be > "have the option" and #786644 to be "enable it by default"? I missed that question, probably because the answer is "no, they have been filed against different packages and thus usages: #786644 is about tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian while #1019742 is about src:reprotest" -- cheers, Holger ??????? ??????? holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ??????? OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ??? I have a joke about trickle down economics. 99% of you won?t ever get it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: