[Reproducible-builds] [Reproducible-commits] [notes] 01/01: add new issue, randomness_in_gnu_build_id and, so far, two packages affected by it: encfs and bacula

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Samstag, 7. Februar 2015, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Build ID differs because the content of the binary
> on which it has been calculated differs [1]. It's only random if there is
> randomness in the content.

ah!

> Just writing “randomness_in_gnu_build_id” is equivalent to “something is
> different” between the compiled binaries. Not a good categorization.

Yes, but https://reproducible.debian.net/dbd/encfs_1.7.4-5.debbindiff.html 
doesn't show any other difference, same for bacula. So is this a bug / missing 
feature in debbindiff? 

Maybe the issue title is not helpful, but to me it still seems like a 
trackworthy category even or maybe especially as we dont know yet what it 
is...

So maybe rename randomness_in_gnu_build_id to undefined_randomness_in_binary? 
or ..._elf_binary?


cheers,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/reproducible-builds/attachments/20150207/094ca6e0/attachment.sig>