Web lists-archives.com

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:07:01PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Such a header could be introduced but that would be undesirable for two
> reasons:

>  - it would make it hard to check whether the binary packages a source package
>    produces are really not different with a certain build profile active. Right
>    now, because of the lack of such a header, we can use the tools from the
>    reproducible builds project to verify that a build profile does not tamper
>    with package contents

>  - right now, a package is uniquely defined by dependency solvers through their
>    the name/version/architecture tuple. It would be possible to make this a
>    quadruplet and let packages be unique by their
>    name/version/architecture/profile property but that would require massive
>    changes in even more parts of our infrastructure than the introduction of
>    build profiles already required.

I think this is an unfortunate case of designing the solution to fit the
particular set of tools.

Build profiles, as a general thing (which they are supposed to be - this is
a major reason support took as long to land in dpkg as it did!), are
significantly less usable if the build profile doesn't follow the resulting
.deb as a tag.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@xxxxxxxxxx                                     vorlon@xxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature