On 2020-11-14, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2020-11-13, Vagrant Cascadian 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
