On 2023-07-27, Peter Blackman wrote: > I can see qt6ct has been rescheduled. Thanks. > > Looks OK on my packages overview, and the tracker, > but is actually unreproducible!
This is because those only track weather trixie/testing is reproducible, and unstable and experimental test more variations. > FWIW, the note looks wrong. > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/qt6ct.html > > > The note says > timestamps_in_source_generated_by_rcc Yeah, I suspect quite a few of that particular issue are misfiled, because many of them consistently build fine in trixie, just not unstable... Compare the unstable results to trixie: https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/timestamps_in_source_generated_by_rcc_issue.html 5 FTBS, 66 unreproducible https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/trixie/timestamps_in_source_generated_by_rcc_issue.html 49 reproducible, 2 FTBFS, 18 unreproducible So my hunch is only ~18 of those are correctly marked, as timestamps variations are more-or-less always tested on all suites. > but the logs show the problem to be with NT_GNU_BUILD_ID. > Usually an rpath issue. > https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/deterministic-build-systems/#cmake-notes Yeah, probably something triggered by build paths, which is not varied in trixie/testing. The typical cmake rpath issue is fairly easy to verify, by passing flags to configure: https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/cmake_rpath_contains_build_path_issue.html Although sometimes there may be other causes. Thanks for looking into it, hope that gives some good leads! live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
