On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 8:46 AM Clemens Lang <cllang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > Alexander Sosedkin <asosedkin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > In RPM world, I've even entertained an idea of having a subpackage for > > auditability not unlike how we have debuginfo, since rebuilding a package > > reproducibly requires builddep pinning. But if that's avoidable, I’d > > rather just not mix artifacts with meta. > > Debian is working on this already, they call those “buildinfo” files: > > https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/BuildinfoFiles > https://manpages.debian.org/testing/dpkg-dev/deb-buildinfo.5.en.html > > If we want something similar, I’d propose not to completely re-invent the > wheel. > We've discussed an RPM-specific format upstream. Debian and Arch both have their own formats that are tailored to their package systems, and RPM may have one too, eventually. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
