Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

[Holger Levsen]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:09:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > 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 we'll continue to file sensible bug reports like we have done in
the last four years.

> 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.
 
I disagree that we should modfiy the results of actual tests based on wishful
thinking or some definition somewhere, even if it's our beloved debian-policy.

It's certainly possible that a package becomes unreproducible, for known or
unknown reasons (hopefully by now we understand most of them (or have the means
to find out)), at any point in time. And then tracker/DDPO should certainly
show that…

Also what you are saying ("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") doesnt really makes sense:
if a package shows up as unreproducible somewhere, it's not reproducible
according to our definition!


-- 
cheers,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/reproducible-builds/attachments/20170815/fc14f5bf/attachment.sig>