Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Adrian Bunk bunk at debian.org
Tue Aug 15 19:09:30 UTC 2017

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk at debian.org> writes:
> > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs
> > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official
> > definition of reproducibility in policy states that this is not required
> > for a package to be reproducible.
> I believe the planned next step here is to publish the *.buildinfo files,
> which contain a specification of the environment variables the build cares
> about, and then Policy can be modified to include a description of
> *.buildinfo files and how to use them.  As part of those changes, we'd
> certainly update the definition of reproducible to reference matching the
> environment specified in the corresponding *.buildinfo file.

I do understand that.

My point is that we now have an official definition what is required
for a package to be reproducible, and what is not required.

Future policy versions might change this definition,
but whatever latest policy states has to be the definition
used by both packages and the reproducible builds team.

Another example is that a package that is reproducible according to the 
policy definition must not show up as non-reproducible in tracker/DDPO 
based on results from the reproducible infrastructure.



       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

More information about the Reproducible-builds mailing list