intrigeri:
> intrigeri:
>> I think it's problematic to write "compilation reproductible"
>> (misleading to the reader + chances to make the reproducible builds
>> community unhappy). See
>> https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/14554#change-77267 for details.
>
> Oops, that's private ticket. Here's what I wrote there:
>
> I don't know if it's the right place to comment about this, but it's
> the first time I see the "compilation" wording in this concept so
> I'll mention my concern here: at the Reproducible Builds Summit we
> had a conversation about whether it was OK to use the word
> "reproducible" for build processes that assemble binary artifacts
> from smaller binary artifacts, and don't compile software from
> source (i.e. what we do).
>
> Some people had concerns with this but the conclusion was that it's
> OK, as long as one is clear about what is built reproducibly.
> I think that "compilation" used this way does not satisfy this
> requirement. I'd rather not cross (parts of) the Reproducible Builds
> community, so I'd really like to see this word replaced by another
> one. What about "assemblage"?
I'm agree with that, if you want to replace "compilation" with
"assemblage" in the blogpost, it's ok for me.
Cheers.
xin
