hi Guillem, On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 12:02:54PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > can't we change this requirement? .buildinfo files for _source.changes > > don't make sense, so we shouldn't create nor distribute them. > (I think we have discussed this in the past. :)
indeed! :)
> If someone uses dpkg-buildpackage, then build dependencies need to be
> satisfied (even for source-only builds), where code gets executed from
> the package itself (clean targets etc), so this is also a build that
> generates an upload represented in a .changes file.
point taken. (not sure whether I previously that it this way, thus I'd rather
say so now.)
> Those can also
> affect source package generation, so I still think it does make sense
> that they generate a .buildinfo file. I also think reproducible source
> packages are an important thing that we already have (at least tooling
> wise), which I'd rather not regress support on.
actually we don't have reproducible source packages and last time we looked
(which argueingly is 10 years ago) it didnt seem feasible *and* we didn't
see a compelling reason to have them either.
why do you think they are important?
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
its crazy that civilization is ending in like 20-30 years and were just here
working jobs. (@RobDenBleyker)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
