Hello! Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wur...@mdc-berlin.de> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > >> Hi! >> >> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wur...@mdc-berlin.de> skribis: >> >>> The lack of an archive is also a problem for reproducibility. You >>> simply cannot download an archive for an obsolete package version. >> >> [...] >> >>> What do you think? I see no way around using the sources from the >>> central Bioconductor SVN repository as tarballs simply don’t give us >>> what we need in terms of reproducibility. >> >> Would it help if we had access to a universal content-addressed archive >> that would include everything Bioconductor has ever published? >> >> That could be another solution (with a big “if”, granted ;-)). > > I guess this would work too, but it would have to be comprehensive to be > useful. For the record: https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/swh-devel/2016-06/msg00007.html > The advantage of using SVN is that a user could quite easily create > variants of a set of Bioconductor R packages for a particular version of > the Bioconductor SVN repository. This gives them additional granularity > which makes the fluidity of the Bioconductor releases more manageable. > > Another advantage is that SVN exists right now. It already behaves like > a full-blown archive of all Bioconductor packages, even *between* > Bioconductor releases. It is just a little more cumbersome to access. > > In any case, I think this would be an improvement over what we have > now. Right now Bioconductor packages in Guix simply are not > reproducible over time. As this invalidates the method of fully > describing a software environment symbolically (using a git hash of the > Guix repository and a manifest), I think we should build Bioconductor > packages from SVN to fix this. Yeah, using SVN is a solution that would work right now, so if that seems workable for you without too much work, go for it. Thanks, Ludo’.
