Please review the draft for November's report

[kpcyrd]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:51:16PM +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Chris Lamb wrote:
> 
> > Please review the draft for November's Reproducible Builds report:
> 
> This has now been published; many thanks to all who contributed.
> 
> Please share the following URL:
> 
>   https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2020-11/
> 
> Alternatively, if you are into that kind of thing, please consider
> retweeting:
> 
>   https://twitter.com/ReproBuilds/status/1337047098685071361
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
>       o
>     ⬋   ⬊      Chris Lamb
>    o     o     reproducible-builds.org 💠
>     ⬊   ⬋
>       o

I'm a bit disappointed in the editing, it feels like the rebuilderd
section I wrote got changed to a side-note.

We made quite a bit of progress in these releases that other distros are
eventually able to benefit from too, Arch Linux is currently the only
supported one because it has been the easiest to integrate and already
had the required tooling that eg. Debian is still working on. It's
somewhat difficult to understand how the different items in the report
are prioritized and the overall report feels rather debian-centric. The
change from `verified` to `reproducible` is unfortunate because we as a
community have also used that term for `builds deterministically` which
is a lot weaker than what we've actually achieved. Instead we've
verified and generated diffoscopes for the "real" packages we actually
distribute and have identified and addressed issues that tests.r-b.org
was not able to detect.

There's only one independent rebuilder that rebuilds a subset of the
Arch packages, I assume there'd be more if rebuilderd had more exposure
in the reproducible builds project.

There've only been 26h between the two mails, I'm not part of the
academic community and I'm only working on reproducible builds in my
personal spare time after my day job, I didn't have the time to check my
emails that day.