On 2022-09-14, Philip Hands wrote: > 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.
Fair point! > 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? True, though it may make things harder to verify reproducibility in practice, especially if it is a fairly "normal" variation that triggers the issue... It is a balancing act... I guess I'd be fine with the defaults to go either way, but it would be important to be able to enable or disable however this gets implemented. 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
