Author: u Date: To: tails-l10n Subject: Re: [Tails-l10n] [fr](pull) What we accomplished in 2017
Hi!
xin: > 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.
