[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: [PATCH] fvwm reproducibility patch
here's my second attempt at an reply.
Greg Troxel transcribed 388 bytes:
> I wonder what our current situation and approach is for reproducible
Same here, and it would be good to know as I only know about the
build.sh work on this wrt NetBSD.
> I am sympathetic in general, but am also wary of engaging in
> large scale pushing of wet noodles uphill if upstreams don't want to
> take patches. (Any one package of course doesn't hurt.)
If possible, we should use less maintenance requiring patch methods
for this, in my opinion. So simply sed and awk.
If patches were to be created, they could easily be shared with other
projects (example, this patch taken mostly from OpenBSD ports with
some adoption to the portable fvwm release).
I'm missing a broader exchange of patches, regardless of upstreaming
or not, between the projects working on this. Preferable in a searchable
format. I track multiple projects only to keep up with possible
solutions and problems.
As I wrote in my last Email, once explained why this kind of
patch is happening and what reproducibile builds are, upstream is
usually okay with them.
> Are we able to build a package reproducibly if there are certain
> properties of the upstream package?
> How many do this?
This is a question worth exploring for bulk+chrooted builds, if it
isn't already done.
Main Index |
Thread Index |