On 2020-11-14, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2020-11-13, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@reproducible-builds.org> wrote: >> If it could be fixed at the core for QFINDTESTDATA, that would be nicer >> than fixing 20-30 packages individually, though we're not there right >> now. > > Unfortunately, only like 10% of the relevant packages have test suites > enabled and run, because gettings things to work reliable is sometimes > hard.
That is a a bit of a surprise! So, based on your estimate and the current packages known to be affected, Debian might have an additional 300 packages that might someday enable test suites. That is ~1% of the archive that would need to make a one-line change in debian/rules if the maintainers enable test suites for those packages. Are there any templates or documentation used for such packages that might be able to facilitate the process? > Adding more hurdles does not help. > I think this is a hurdle we do not need. To me, a one-line change in packaging seems like a quite small hurdle in the short-term, but clearly you do not agree. So it really comes down to applying opt-in patches for hundreds (maybe thousands) of packages, or an opt-out change for somewhere in the ballpark of tens or hundreds of packages. Long-term, of course it would be more ideal to fix QFINDTESTDATA to be compatible with -ffile-prefix-map/-fmacro-prefix-map compiler flags being used to strip the build path from the compiled outputs; this would solve the issue for potentially hundreds of packages and would make the issue essentially moot. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
