home  bbs  files  messages ]

      ZZLI4422             linux.debian.devel             1179 messages      

[ previous | next | reply ]

[ list messages | list forums ]

  Msg # 237 of 1179 on ZZLI4422, Saturday 10-03-25, 1:15  
  From: SANTIAGO VILA  
  To: HELMUT GROHNE  
  Subj: Re: MBF: Packages which FTBFS with the n  
 From: sanvila@debian.org 
  
 On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 06:09:39PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: 
  
 > Would you be able to occasionally do a more complex test? Occasionally, 
 > the package actually cross builds with the nocheck build profile but 
 > misses stuff. This is not technically a FTBFS, but it also violates the 
 > definition of the nocheck build profile. 
 > 
 > Here is a sketch of how to test this: 
 > 
 >    1. Perform a nocheck build 
 >       + failure? -> stop + report nocheck FTBFS 
  
 Remark: I only report a nocheck FTBFS when the package builds ok 
 normally, because otherwise you have to compare two different modes of 
 failure, and that makes things a lot more complex for little gain. 
  
 So, I know for sure that the current MBF I just did misses a few cases. 
 I consider those to be "hidden" by their current regular FTBFS issue, 
 and they will stop to be hidden when their regular FTBFS issue is fixed. 
  
 >    2. Perform a normal build 
 >       + failure? -> stop + report FTBFS 
 >    3. Compare the binary artifacts of these builds for equality 
 >       + equal? -> stop 
 >    4. Perform another normal build 
 >       + failure? -> stop + report random FTBFS 
 >    5. Compare the binary artifacts of the two normal builds 
 >       + equal? -> stop + report nocheck changing the result 
 >    6. Compare the content filenames of the nocheck build and the normal 
 >       build 
 >       + inequal? -> stop + report nocheck changing the result 
 > 
 > What do you think? 
  
 I have to choose my battles because I have too many of them... 
  
 I'm not ready to do cross-builds yet, and my framework is not ready to 
 compare binary artifacts as such (because the outcome is always "build 
 logs"), but maybe I should think about extracting the Checksums-Sha256 
 from the build logs (regular build) and do something with them, 
 as a sub-product of my current archive rebuilds. 
  
 Is there an easy way to get a list of packages known to be reproducible? 
 [ In the worst case, I could just get all the packages in sid (from 
 Sources.xz) and substract the ones having an entry in notes.git ] 
  
 Thanks. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2) 

[ list messages | list forums | previous | next | reply ]

search for:

328,110 visits
(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca