On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:34:38PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 12:43 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > Whatever point you were trying to make around NEW, your argument is not > > very convincing. I think Holger is right here: Where the package is > > built should not matter. Presence of .buildinfo and reproducibility > > does. > > Appollogies if this is covering well worn ground but does this mean we > therefore need to check that everything referenced in .buildinfo was > present in the archive at some point as a step during accepting a > package (new or not new) into the archive?
well, yes, but we should check this today too, just for proper builds, independently of reproducible builds. > Where "was present in the archive at some point" is a proxy for "is > present on snapshots.d.o". If that can also be checked directly that > might be cool, although it might be considered a bit rude to a > maintainer to reject a package for what was a snapshot.do.o issue. well, yes, the check should be done using a local (copy of the) snapshot.d.o database. It's also rude to upload a package built with packages not in the archive, and we should prevent that. > https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/BuildinfoFiles suggests that > the build environment contains the versions of packages but not their > hashes -- so there is a possibility that a developer might be building > with a non-canonical version of the package. Perhaps they installed a > local dev version of the build-dep, perhaps because they maintain both > and we doing a quasi-simultaneous upload. That's perhaps not indicative > of best practice, but mistakes do happen. yup, and we should try to catch as many automatically as we can. -- cheers, Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
