Ricardo Wurmus <[email protected]> skribis: > Ben Woodcroft <[email protected]> writes: > >> On 31/12/15 03:26, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>> Ben Woodcroft <[email protected]> skribis: >>> >>>> On 29/12/15 15:46, Ben Woodcroft wrote: >>>>> Unfortunately none of these builds are reproducible because rubygems >>>>> in Guix generally aren't. For one, this is because .gem files are >>>>> archives whose contents are timestamped. >>>> I should clarify. What I meant was the cache .gem files >>>> >>>> /gnu/store/ib83mg5zsyr5x2w0m3i1f84gdvdbp5x9-ruby-ascii85-1.0.2/lib/ruby/gems/2.2.0/cache$ >>>> tar tvf Ascii85-1.0.2.gem |head >>>> -r--r--r-- wheel/wheel 703 2015-12-27 22:44 metadata.gz >>>> -r--r--r-- wheel/wheel 7436 2015-12-27 22:44 data.tar.gz >>>> -r--r--r-- wheel/wheel 268 2015-12-27 22:44 checksums.yaml.gz >>> We should arrange so that gems are created with a fixed timestamp and >>> UID/GID, and a well-defined file ordering, as with: >>> >>> --mtime=@0 --sort=name --owner=root:0 --group=root:0 >>> >>> We also need to make sure gzip is always run with -n/--no-name. That >>> way, the gz files above will not include an additional timestamp. >>> >>> From what I can see in >>> <git://git.debian.org/git/reproducible/notes.git>, this is not addressed >>> yet in other distros. >> Ludo are you suggesting we should abandon the deletion approach?
Ah no, I hadn’t read the proposal when I replied. Sorry for the confusion! >> I think you are right as usual. Better in attached? > > It looks good to me, thank you. So I guess you (Ricardo?) can push it now. Ben, do you confirm that the ruby-* packages you tested are indeed bit-reproducible after this change, using --rounds=2 or so? Thank you! Ludo’.
