From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org>,
Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com>,
Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>,
Suhail <suhail@bayesians.ca>,
Help-Guix mailing list <help-guix@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 13:13:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86msvwnyjo.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bkcdjqfx.fsf@wireframe>
Hi,
On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 at 11:09, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> wrote:
>> Please bear with me as I again belabor the same point without receiving
>> public support. Building packages should be separate from testing them.
>
> In general, I agree... sort of.
>
> I do see value in build-time tests preventing a build from
> succeeding... being a way to ensure that a broken build does not
> actually get distributed.
>
> You could completely separate out the tests, and set up some other
> mechanism to prevent broken things from getting distributed, but that is
> considerably more complicated.
I think the complication starts before. :-)
Well, hoping to not misunderstand something or miss a point.
Currently, the tests are one among many other phases of the build
system. Therefore, this would need to be extracted as a separated
derivation. Somehow, there is 3 derivations involved when building a
package:
+ fetch source
+ run build system
+ graft (optionally)
And somehow you would like to split “run build system” (./configure &&
make && make check)) as two derivations:
+ run build (./configure && make)
+ test (make check)
If we are here, we could make all the phases as separated derivations.
A corollary is that a failure about one phases step would not require to
redo all the previous steps.
Well, if my understanding is correct, separating the tests would be a
piece of work, I guess. :-)
Cheers,
simon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-02 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-29 18:44 Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper Suhail
2023-10-31 13:03 ` Julien Lepiller
2023-11-01 3:36 ` Felix Lechner via
2023-11-01 18:09 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2023-11-02 12:13 ` Simon Tournier [this message]
2023-10-31 15:19 ` Simon Tournier
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-11-01 16:47 Suhail
2023-11-01 17:06 Suhail
2023-11-01 19:11 ` Simon Tournier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=86msvwnyjo.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
--cc=felix.lechner@lease-up.com \
--cc=help-guix@gnu.org \
--cc=julien@lepiller.eu \
--cc=suhail@bayesians.ca \
--cc=vagrant@reproducible-builds.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).