| 31 Oct 2023 |
 raitobezarius | In reply to @foxboron:archlinux.org
I don't think so, there are too many weird issues for stuff to be unreproducible and different domains of "problems" While I agree there are many weird issues, we are getting better and better at bounding the class of problems | 13:26:34 |
| raitobezarius | But I know you are not very convinced except if we show you proofs :P | 13:27:01 |
| raitobezarius | So I won't try to convince you until we have proper numbers and testing stories | 13:27:11 |
| raitobezarius | (and you are right to doubt) | 13:27:20 |
 Foxboron | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
But I know you are not very convinced except if we show you proofs :P Having >80k packages of varying degrees of quality is going to make it a very hard problem :p | 13:28:08 |
| raitobezarius | Fair, but we only need to start by intersecting this set with other distro first | 13:28:29 |
| Foxboron | Guix (and Arch for that matter) get an easier job because we do have a limit of what we decide to support | 13:28:29 |
| raitobezarius | And see if we are already as fine as them | 13:28:33 |
| Foxboron | The ISO targets are nice goals though :) | 13:28:50 |
| raitobezarius | Once we are there, we can start looking at the rest of the observable universe :P | 13:28:53 |
| raitobezarius | I think we need the "Archlinux goal" | 13:29:02 |
| raitobezarius | Or the Guix goal | 13:29:05 |
| raitobezarius | After that, it will be a new type of discussion of "what does it mean to pursue a reproducibility goal for nixpkgs?" | 13:29:18 |
 Julien | debian has really good numbers | 13:29:20 |
| raitobezarius | Any project having a good Reproducible Builds team, I guess :P | 13:29:41 |
| Foxboron | You'll also have inflated numbers because you deal with "paths" and repackage ecosystems. | 13:29:49 |
| raitobezarius | The Repology statistics doesn't include them AFAIK | 13:30:05 |
| Foxboron | In reply to @julienmalka:matrix.org
debian has really good numbers The numbers you are looking at are not real reproductions, fyi | 13:30:05 |
| raitobezarius | I mean | 13:30:07 |
| raitobezarius | Include repackaged ecosystems | 13:30:10 |
| raitobezarius | Yes | 13:30:11 |
| raitobezarius | Not the "paths" though | 13:30:16 |
| raitobezarius | There are too many ways to count what is the artifacts output size of nixpkgs | 13:30:31 |
 atemu12 | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
Include repackaged ecosystems It does. | 13:30:33 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @atemu12:matrix.org
It does. Yes yes, I clarified it does include repackaged ecosystems but not the "paths" | 13:30:46 |
| raitobezarius | I think it's fair to include repackaged ecosystems though | 13:30:54 |
| raitobezarius | AUR does have python3-XYZ | 13:30:59 |
| raitobezarius | For many XYZ | 13:31:01 |
| raitobezarius | Debian doesn't and… this means that people have to pursue them somewhere else | 13:31:14 |
| Foxboron | The repro count you are operating with uses "paths" which confuses people :) | 13:31:20 |
