Yesteday we had a discussion about that on irc. Here it goes:
[15:15:16] <g_bor> hello guix! [15:16:01] <g_bor> do we have a proposed way to build pyc files reproducibly? [15:16:50] <g_bor> I've read in the report, that we are not there yet, but is someone working on it? [15:17:58] <lfam> g_bor: This is the report you mention? < https://bugs.gnu.org/22533> [15:18:10] <lfam> I'm not sure if anyone has been working on it since the last message [15:20:26] * Guest74 has joined #guix [15:23:05] <g_bor> thx, just what i was looking for. [15:23:26] <lfam> It's possible that some work in this area is pending on the 'core-updates' Git branch, but I'm not sure [15:37:41] <mb[m]1> At this stage we might as well wait for this to land upstream: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0552/ So, it seems, that we are waiting for this pep to land upstream. 2017-11-05 16:49 GMT+01:00 Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org>: > Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> skribis: > > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > > >> Here’s an update on reproducibility in Guix: > >> > >> https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/news/reproducible-builds- > a-status-update.html > > > > At least 78% to possibly 91% reproduciblility of packages is not bad. > > > > Is there a (small) core that is already 100% reprocucible, like the > > installation binaries/USB installer, bare-bones.tmpl or even > > lightweight-desktop.tmpl? > > Good question! I think as soon as you have Python .pyc files in the > dependency graph (reference graph), there are non-reproducible bits. We > certainly have Python stuff in the base system reference graph, so > that’s one thing we should fix most urgently I guess. > > Ludo’. > >
