Bug#1141346: RFS: noctalia/5.0.0~beta1-1 -- A sleek and minimal desktop shell thoughtfully crafted for Wayland

Hi,

* Nick Hastings <[email protected]> [2026-08-12 17:32]: 
>
>* Chris Hofstaedtler <[email protected]> [2026-08-12 05:55]: 
>>On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 01:15:58PM +0900, Nick Hastings wrote: 
>>> > I: noctalia: file-references-package-build-path [usr/bin/noctalia] 
>>> > N:
>>> > N:   The listed file or maintainer script appears to reference the build path 
>>> > N:   used to build the package as specified in the Build-Path field of the 
>>> > N:   .buildinfo file. 
>>> > N:
>>> > N:   This is likely to cause the package to be unreproducible, but it may also 
>>> > N:   indicate that the package will not work correctly outside of the 
>>> > N:   maintainer's own system. 
>>> > N:
>>> > N:   Please note that this tag will not appear unless the .buildinfo file 
>>> > N:   contains a Build-Path field. That field is optional. You may have to set 
>>> > N:   DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=buildinfo=+path or use 
>>> > N:   --buildinfo-option=--always-include-path with dpkg-buildpackage when 
>>> > N:   building. 
>>> > N:
>>> > N:   Please refer to https://reproducible-builds.org/, 
>>> > N:   https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/BuildinfoFiles, and the 
>>> > N:   dpkg-genbuildinfo(1) manual page for details. 
>>> > N:
>>> > N:   Visibility: info 
>>> > N:   Show-Always: no 
>>> > N:   Check: files/contents 
>>> 
>>> I see no 'usr/bin/noctali' in any .buildinfo files that I currently have 
>>> on disk for this package. Perhaps this is fixed in the current version, 
>>> or perhaps I'm not understanding what this lintian warning is stating. 
q> > 
>>% strings ./usr/bin/noctalia | grep repro 
>>/build/reproducible-path/noctalia-5.0.0~beta.8/assets 
>>
>>This seems like a likely issue. 
>
>Sorry I don't understand why this causes a problem for reproducible 
>builds. It uses a standard meson build as far as I can tell and I don't 
>know what needs to be fixed here. 
 
I worked out what this error meant, why it was happening, and raised it 
with upstream. It turned out it was added to the build as a convenience 
for running the tests prior to installation. A better solution has now 
been implemented upstream and will be in the next release (probably this 
week).

Thanks,

Nick.