Bug#1019742: should reproducible builds vary nocheck?

[Chris Lamb]

Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:

> Should we merge #786644 and #1019742?  Or should we consider #1019742 to 
> be "have the option" and #786644 to be "enable it by default"?

I like the idea of varying nocheck, or at least exploring the concept.

>From personal experience, I think it will actually cause a
surprisingly large number of packages to become unreproducible. Many
many packages generate stuff during test runs which then gets
installed into a binary package. I can only reliably come across these
when the output is non-deterministic, but given how many instances of
this there are, I suspect there are a lot more packages that generate
*deterministic* stuff.

Just a small thing regarding the two bugs you suggest merging:

#786644 is filed against jenkins.debian.org (ie. the service powering
tests.reproducible-builds.org), whilst #1019742 is filed against the
reprotest package. It is not actually that obvious, but
tests.reproducible-builds.org does not use reprotest to do its varations,
so it is "technically" correct that they are different bugs.

They, of course, could still be merged, or be used in the "add the
option" and "enabled by default" schema as you suggest. But just to
remind anyone following these bugs that reprotest is technically a
different Thing from tests.reproducible-builds.org.


Regards,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby at debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-