3 ms·
99%? Debbie Downer says it only takes 1 package to screw the pooch
by knowitnone 1y ago
99%? Debbie Downer says it only takes 1 package to screw the pooch
- ethersteeds 1y agoI would still much prefer playing 100:1 Russian roulette than 1:1, if those are my options.
- nwah1 1y agoThere's a long tail of obscure packages that are rarely used, and almost certainly a power law in terms of which packages are common. Reproducibility often requires coordination between both the packagers and the developers, and achieving that for each and every package is optimistic. If they just started quarantining the long tail of obscure packages, then people would get upset. And failing to be 100% reproducible will make a subset of users upset. Lose-lose proposition there, given that intelligent users could just consciously avoid packages that aren't passing reproducibility tests. 100% reproducibility is a good goal, but as long as the ubiquitous packages are reproducible then that is probably going to cover most. Would be interesting to provide an easy way to disallow non-reproducible packages. I'm sure one day they will be able to make it a requirement for inclusion into the official repos.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y agoThere's an interesting thought - in addition to aiming for 99% of all packages, perhaps it would be a good idea to target 100% of the packages that, say, land in the official install media? (I wouldn't even be surprised if they already meet that goal TBH, but making it explicit and documenting it has value)
- EasyMark 1y ago"All I see is 1% of complete failure" --Bad Dads everywhere