Follow

@gnome @reproducible_builds

I often like to target package sets when working on . How hard it would be to get packages in fully reproducible, currently at about 90%...

tests.reproducible-builds.org/

looks pretty similar, fwiw:

tests.reproducible-builds.org/

Both Include a few submitted but unapplied patches...

@vagrantc @gnome @reproducible_builds The page listing for GNOME looks odd; there are notes for stuff that has long been fixed or isn't relevant at all

@ebassi @gnome @reproducible_builds

The notes are manually curated, so discrepancies are certainly possible. Some old issues we track even if they've been fixed or worked around (e.g. fixed in debian but not upstream).

Hopefully the output is improving, there were some recent regressions that are hopefully fixed now, but may lag until individual packages get tested again.

@vagrantc @gnome @reproducible_builds We (GNOME) are very interested in reproducibility, as it allows us to reduce the size of Flatpak run times, since identical files get de-duplicated on disk, and delta updates are smaller. Always feel free to file bugs about reproducibility upstream.

@ebassi @gnome @reproducible_builds

Glad to hear it, will make an effort to submit bugs to upstream!

Looks like many of the remaining packages aren't gnome upstream, per se, possibly ones that are just used or depended on by gnome.

Speaking of which, the packages needed to build gnome in debian also need some work:

tests.reproducible-builds.org/

Sign in to participate in the conversation
FLOSS.social

For people who care about, support, or build Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS).