GNU bug report logs - #29196
upstreaming of reproducibility related patches

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 29196 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 29196 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ng0 <ng0 <at> infotropique.org>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: upstreaming of reproducibility related patches
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:17:20 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

as I wrote in #29135, we should upstream the patches we
gather for reproducibility. Share with upstream what is
applicable to more software than just Guix included
definitions of the software etc.
Attached to it: the usual conversation, outreach,
public relations, discussions thing.

We have no list for this so far, so we should first
look into the patch-file patches (the obvious ones,
in gnu/packages/patches/), and after that into some
maybe not so obvious fixes we keep in the definitions
themselves (via substitute etc).
So we need a list, and then motivated people can work
on this. Even if people is just a couple. It helps.

We need to share this, to avoid duplicate work elsewhere.
-- 
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://dist.ng0.infotropique.org/dist/keys/
  WWW: https://ng0.infotropique.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #8 received at 29196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org>
To: ng0 <ng0 <at> infotropique.org>
Cc: 29196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29196: upstreaming of reproducibility related patches
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 19:08:21 +0100

ng0 writes:

> as I wrote in #29135, we should upstream the patches we
> gather for reproducibility. Share with upstream what is
> applicable to more software than just Guix included
> definitions of the software etc.

> We have no list for this so far
> We need to share this, to avoid duplicate work elsewhere.

What about the reproducible builds list?

    https://lists.reproducible-builds.org/listinfo/rb-general
    General discussions about reproducible builds <rb-general <at> lists.reproducible-builds.org>

At the reproducible-builds summit last week in Berlin some work has been
done on the topic of upstreaming patches.  I think some effort has gone
(is going?) into a email template that starts by explaining what
reproducible-builds is, why it is important and why upstream should
consider taking the patch.

Greetings,
janneke

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com

Message #11 received at 29196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ng0 <ng0 <at> infotropique.org>
To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 29196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ng0 <ng0 <at> infotropique.org>
Subject: Re: bug#29196: upstreaming of reproducibility related patches
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 05:12:43 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen transcribed 1.0K bytes:
> ng0 writes:
> 
> > as I wrote in #29135, we should upstream the patches we
> > gather for reproducibility. Share with upstream what is
> > applicable to more software than just Guix included
> > definitions of the software etc.
> 
> > We have no list for this so far
> > We need to share this, to avoid duplicate work elsewhere.
> 
> What about the reproducible builds list?

Well, list as in a list that lists our patches, not a mailinglist ;)

>     https://lists.reproducible-builds.org/listinfo/rb-general
>     General discussions about reproducible builds <rb-general <at> lists.reproducible-builds.org>
> 
> At the reproducible-builds summit last week in Berlin some work has been
> done on the topic of upstreaming patches.  I think some effort has gone
> (is going?) into a email template that starts by explaining what
> reproducible-builds is, why it is important and why upstream should
> consider taking the patch.
> 
> Greetings,
> janneke
> 
> -- 
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
> Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com
> 

-- 
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://dist.ng0.infotropique.org/dist/keys/
  WWW: https://ng0.infotropique.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #14 received at 29196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 29196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ng0 <ng0 <at> infotropique.org>
Subject: Re: bug#29196: upstreaming of reproducibility related patches
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:06:29 +0100

Hello,

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> ng0 writes:
>
>> as I wrote in #29135, we should upstream the patches we
>> gather for reproducibility. Share with upstream what is
>> applicable to more software than just Guix included
>> definitions of the software etc.
>
>> We have no list for this so far
>> We need to share this, to avoid duplicate work elsewhere.
>
> What about the reproducible builds list?
>
>     https://lists.reproducible-builds.org/listinfo/rb-general
>     General discussions about reproducible builds <rb-general <at> lists.reproducible-builds.org>

Indeed.  There’s also the issue database initiated by Debian, which we
can contribute to and borrow from:

  https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/reproducible/notes.git/tree/

Since this is not a bug, please follow-up to guix-devel.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.