Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@reproducible-builds.org> writes: >> but also >> (given that the tests will have passed during the normal build) the tests >> failing during the varied build seems unlikely to be identifying faults that >> are >> worth fixing, and so is just a waste of cycles. > > How do you know weather the bugs it is identifying are worth fixing? It > could also identify non-deterministic failures, or failures triggered by > specific build environment configurations...
The point is that if the package is reproducible, then the fact that its tests fail when run in a weird environment (that may never be found in the wild) seems rather likely to be finding errors in the tests rather than errors in the program that gets shipped. Even if busybox's du really does have a bug where it miscounts the sizes of files when run under the fileordering variation, I'm not sure that breaking the ability to confirm that the package is reproducible is justified in order to find that bug. I'm afraid I've not yet managed to work out what's behind the mis-counting, but my first guess is that it's more likely to be something in the fuse system presenting the data than in du's counting of it. Of course, if the package is not reproducible, the tests may well fail because the package ends up containing new bugs that are only present in the variant-built package, but then its also going to show up as non-reproducible, so does that really make a difference? Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
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
