Help us map the reproducible builds ecosystem

[Holger Levsen]

On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 02:51:17PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> There is definitely an argument to be as complete as possible, but I
> think the best thing from the perspective of the ecosystem map is to
> be as consistent as possible across similar entities.

I'm not sure there is so much consistancy...
 
> Therefore we should _probably_ stick to "% reproducible of packages",
> as this is a number that most, if not all, distributions have.

tails doesnt have any packages, nor yocto, and the java world has artifacts
(which doesnt really matches the packages concept AIUI) and the BSD people really
dont like the term (maybe its also wrong in their world) and rather use 'ports'
instead (while ports in the linux world is something else :)

and then we do have the distinction between reproducible in the real distributed world 
and reproducible in some CI setup. (which not every project has or even would strive
for...)

for Debian I would love to track the distinction between packages, d-i images,
calamares images and live images. oh, and of course those cloud images Debian also
provides :) though *maybe* that's too much for the ecosystem map.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

People call vaccine mandates "Orwellian" even though Orwell died at 46 of
tuberculosis, which is now preventable with a vaccine.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/attachments/20210805/df5118be/attachment.sig>