Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

Bill Allombert ballombe at debian.org
Sun Aug 20 19:22:26 UTC 2017

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:40:23PM -0700, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> > Now compare with reproducible build. You get some error report you
> > cannot reproduce, do some change following the help provided and
> > hope for the best. Then some day later you get the same error
> > report.
> I'd dearly love to know when/where this occurred if you can provide a
> reference.

This happens for errors listed on the reproducible-build.org website.
I do not speak about bug report here.

> This is not our, and certainly not my own, intention when filing
> reproducibility-related bugs, which always include a well-intentioned
> patch.

I know from experience you and the reproducible-build team report
excellent bug report with good patches. That is not the issue but you do
not need policy to continue doing that.

However, are not maintainers expected to make their packages
policy-compliant without waiting for bug report ?
Are not maintainers supposed to be proactive and try to fix
issues that they became aware without waiting for someone to fill a bug ?
Are not users allowed to fill bugs when packages does not seem to comply
with documented expectation ?

As I said, if this policy is only meant to be a vehicule for the
reproducible-build team, then it is fine by me. However if it means
for general audience, then it is premature.
It would be best to focus first on requiring all generators to be
deterministic. One this step is reached (we are already close thanks to
the reproducible-build team work), it will much easier for maintainers
to deal wih reproducibility issues because they will not need

Bill. <ballombe at debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.

More information about the Reproducible-builds mailing list