Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Ximin Luo infinity0 at debian.org
Wed Aug 16 10:51:00 UTC 2017

Bill Allombert:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:00:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk <bunk at debian.org> writes:
>>> 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.
>> This in absolutely no way constrains the reproducible build team from
>> working on raising the bar in the future.
> Adrian is speaking of DDPO, not of reproducible-builds.org.
> reproducible-builds.org website woud still be free to list other
> requirements, and DDPO could even display both results.
> I am still concerned that there will be no reliable way for maintainers
> to check whether a package is reproducible according to policy before
> uploading it to the archive.

Did nobody mention

$ reprotest --dont-vary build_path auto xxx.dsc -- schroot unstable-amd64-sbuild



GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE

More information about the Reproducible-builds mailing list