[Reproducible-builds] Applying to Outreachy to work on Reproducible Builds

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Val,

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 08:29:44PM -0400, spectranaut at riseup.net wrote:
> Hurray! I started coding (when trapped without Internet earlier), now for
> confirmation:
> 
> All possible status (Holger you mentioned "not for us" over irc, but that
> results with that status are already excluded, along with "blacklisted" and
> "404"):

right. i had forgotten about that :)

> ['FTBFS', 'depwait', 'reproducible', 'unreproducible']
> 
> Tables of the result status, across (all two) architectures:
> arch1  | reproducible | reproducible   | ftbfs | depwait       | depwait
> |
> arch2  | reproducible | unreproducible | *     | repro/unrepro | depwait
> |
> status | reproducible | unreproducible | ftbfs | repro/unrepro | depwait ??

that looks good to me. (+correct on depwait.)

> 
> Questions:
> - see ?? above -- I assume I copy over "depwait" here?

yup

> About the JSON format!
> Old format:
>     {
>         "architecture": "armhf",
>         "build_date": "2016-02-06 22:26",
>         "package": "zzzeeksphinx",
>         "status": "reproducible",
>         "suite": "unstable",
>         "version": "1.0.17-1"
>     },
>     {
>         "architecture": "amd64",
>         "build_date": "2016-03-19 23:35",
>         "package": "zzzeeksphinx",
>         "status": "reproducible",
>         "suite": "unstable",
>         "version": "1.0.17-1"
>     },
> 
> New proposed format:
>     {
>         "architecture": "armhf",
>         "build_date": "2016-02-06 22:26",
>         "package": "zzzeeksphinx",
>         "status": "reproducible",
>         "suite": "unstable",
>         "version": "1.0.17-1"
>         "architecture_status": [
>             {
>                 "architecture": "armhf",
>                 "build_date": "2016-02-06 22:26",
>                 "status": "reproducible"
>             },
>             {
>                 "architecture": "amd64",
>                 "build_date": "2016-03-19 23:35",
>                 "status": "reproducible"
>             },
>         ]
>     }
> 
> Or, should I drop the architecture_status in the "new proposed format"
> altogether? Will no one need it?

i'd like to have architecture_status there. but i think you should drop
architecture & build-date above.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/reproducible-builds/attachments/20160331/107a2d9d/attachment.sig>