[LEDE-DEV] Release 17.01.0 binary packages have changed and SDK inconsistency

[James Feeney]

I am motivated to rant again on this topic.  Repeating what I said last
November, before the new release process was finalized, in response to
David Lang:

---

>> There is an interesting question of how to refer to what state of each feed
>> you use for a release. Currently OpenWRT doesn't even try to do this. The
>> feed version you get is the feed version that exists at the time you last
>> pulled from the feeds.

> Uhm - I'm a bit taken aback by that.

>> This hasn't been a big problem in practice, but it does mean that you don't
>> really have a repeatable build.

> I would have thought that that was a "show stopper".  It certainly does not
> inspire confidence.

> I say this is a "problem" and should be a high priority issue.

>> See my other e-mail about [git] submodules for a
>> discussion on this.

> Yes, I looked at that.  It would seem to address and solve a number of issues.
> There would be no need for a separate "manifest", and, most importantly, there
> would be a git "snapshot" of the *entire* project state.  If I understand,
> that also means there would be a unique git tag that would label that state,
> and could be associated with any kind of specific nickname, version, and build
> number.  It would mean that every build was repeatable.

>>> It would be possible, I suppose, that each of these linked repositories
>>> could be *required* to use the *same* versioned naming scheme.
>>
>> can't be done, these other repositories are not under our control. The most
>> we can do is reference exactly which release we use..

---

So then, nothing was done to address this issue, when developing the new release
process, where, instead, at worst, LEDE could simply "snapshot" a "feed", and
keep that copy on github, and then *under LEDE's control*.  And git submodules
are still an available solution.

I don't know that there is any polite way to express how ridiculous I find this
situation, of non-repeatable builds, let alone the failure to bump the version
number of the release.  I might call it "unprofessional", though I'm tempted to
be otherwise demeaning.

Let me say again, I think that this is an important issue that the LEDE project
needs to address and remedy.  I believe that the ultimate credibility and
reputation of the LEDE project is at stake.

James