<g_bor>Just a quick question: I have a package inherited from a package having a debug output, and it seems, that I have a .gnu_debuglink records installation directory reproducibility problem further down the inheritance hierarchy.
<g_bor>I'd like to know if adding outputs out to this package would help, or should I add a strip .gnu-debuglink phase?
<g_bor>(basically do we have a .gnu-debuglink if we don't have debug output?)
<m-o>efraim: yes, you may also want to guix gc after that.
<civodul>i didn't understand your first sentence though
<civodul>are you saying you found a package that's not reproducible?
<mb[m]1>civodul: different hash, really? Did you copy the command exactly as written, including the trailing slash after --prefix?
<g_bor>No, that's not it, the package is reproducible.
<g_bor>We are trying a slightly different approach in the diverse double compilation project, that causes otherways harmless problems to appear as non-reproducibility.
<g_bor>In the usual setting recording the installation directory is not a problem, because we always install the package in the same place. However when we want to compare the double compiled results, then we have a problem with the recorded installation directory.
<g_bor>For example libtool la files have a reference to the installation directory.
<ng0>hi! I have some open font patches for at least 1.5 months and more (oldest is august), with no comments and one as I understand it good to go. Can someone review and/or push in the next days? That would be most appreciated
<ng0>I think I'll send a correction commit for fira-sans. My description and synopsis was bad
<CharlieBrown>I try to explain to my family members that Guix and GPG are reliably secure, but they just blindly insist that the government has everything compromised and alters everything all the time wihout anybody knowing.