Bug#1105019: sbuild: source.changes includes binary build info

Holger Levsen <[email protected]> Tue, 13 May 2025 11:10:25 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.dpkg.bugs
Message-ID	<aCMooTVqU2OQm9Ug__25220.2103425347$1747134925$gmane$org@layer-acht.org>

hi Guillem,

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 12:02:54PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > can't we change this requirement? .buildinfo files for _source.changes
> > don't make sense, so we shouldn't create nor distribute them.
> (I think we have discussed this in the past. :)

indeed! :)
 
> If someone uses dpkg-buildpackage, then build dependencies need to be
> satisfied (even for source-only builds), where code gets executed from
> the package itself (clean targets etc), so this is also a build that
> generates an upload represented in a .changes file.

point taken. (not sure whether I previously that it this way, thus I'd rather
say so now.)

> Those can also
> affect source package generation, so I still think it does make sense
> that they generate a .buildinfo file. I also think reproducible source
> packages are an important thing that we already have (at least tooling
> wise), which I'd rather not regress support on.

actually we don't have reproducible source packages and last time we looked
(which argueingly is 10 years ago) it didnt seem feasible *and* we didn't
see a compelling reason to have them either.

why do you think they are important?


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

its crazy that civilization is ending in like 20-30 years and were just here
working jobs. (@RobDenBleyker)

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)