Hi Chris, Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> skribis:
> Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes: >> >>> On 923bb70a1bff657125c3008f119a477e5cb57c2b >>> gnu:glibc-for-bootstrap: Fix patch. >>> >>> Run >>> ./pre-inst-env guix build --target=powerpc-linux-gnu bootstrap-tarballs > g>> >>> Producing >>> >>> /gnu/store/dyj1wvayyp1ihaknkxniz1xamcf4yrhl-bootstrap-tarballs-0 >>> >>> With guix hash -rx >>> /gnu/store/dyj1wvayyp1ihaknkxniz1xamcf4yrhl-bootstrap-tarballs-0 >>> >>> 02xx2ydj28pwv3vflqffinpq1icj09gzi9icm8j4bwc4lca9irxn >> >> Generally speaking, this patch looks fine to me. Just curious, what >> sort of machines does one use for 32-bit powerpc? >> >> I want to build the bootstrap binaries, see if they're reproducible (in >> particular GCC, which I suspect won't be), and verify the hashes. >> >> It might take a few days to do that, but I'll update this thread once >> I've done it. > > I repeated Efraim's steps on two different x86_64-linux Guix System > machines. In both cases, it produced exactly the same hash. Therefore, > it would seem these bootstrap binaries are actually reproducible. This is great news, thanks for checking! With this, we can be more confident uploading the binary seeds to ftp.gnu.org. > I was surprised by this because of my experience with bug 41669. I > expected GCC to not be reproducible, but in this case it seems > reproducible. Yes, that’s weird, but it’s better this way. :-) Thanks, Ludo’.