Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Russ Allbery rra at debian.org
Tue Aug 15 21:37:48 UTC 2017

Adrian Bunk <bunk at debian.org> writes:

> This is not about experimenting for raising the bar in the future.

> This is about the reproducible builds team not using policy as a stick 
> for claiming a bar higher than what policy actually defines.

> Is it really allowed to claim that a package is not reproducible,
> when it actually is reproducible according to policy?

Yes.  Ideally one would distinguish between those various definitions of
reproducible, though, and present all of them.

> Unless policy is supposed to be completely detached from reality, the
> criteria for claiming in various places that a package is unreproducible
> have to match the policy definition of reproducibility.

No, I don't agree.  This is not how we do things in Debian.  There is
quite a bit of information that we give developers about possible flaws in
their package, from Lintian and build log analysis and many other things,
that is not required by Policy.  This is no different.

Russ Allbery (rra at debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

More information about the Reproducible-builds mailing list