Hi Björn, > On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:14:53 +0200 > Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: > >> Björn Höfling <bjoern.hoefl...@bjoernhoefling.de> writes: >> >> > And you mentioned different environment conditions like machine and >> > kernel. We still have "only" 70-90% reproducibility. >> >> Where does that number come from? In my tests for a non-trivial set >> of bioinfo pipelines I got to 97.7% reproducibility (or 95.2% if you >> include very minor problems) for 355 direct inputs. >> >> I rebuilt on three different machines. > > I have no own numbers but checked Ludivic's blog post from October 2017: > > https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/blog/2017/reproducible-builds-a-status-update/ > > "We’re somewhere between 78% and 91%—not as good as Debian yet, [..]".
Ah, I see. Back then we didn’t have a fix for Python bytecode, which affects a large number of packages in Guix but not on Debian (who simply don’t distribute bytecode AFAIU). > So if your numbers are valid for the whole repository, that is good > news and would mean we are now better than Debian , and that would > be worth a new blog post. The analysis was only done for the “pigx” package and its direct/propagated inputs. I’d like to investigate the sources of non-determinism for remaining packages and fix them one by one. For some we already know what’s wrong (e.g. for Haskell packages the random order of packages in the database seems to be responsible), but for others we haven’t made an effort to look closely enough. I’d also take the Debian numbers with a spoonful of salt (and then take probiotics in an effort to undo some of the damage, see), because they aren’t actually rebuilding all Debian packages. : https://insights.mdc-berlin.de/en/2017/11/gut-bacteria-sensitive-salt/ -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net