Nice! Special thanks to all who help pushing the Guix 1.5.0 release and shovel bugs away.
Rutherther <[email protected]> writes: > Some of the artefacts have been built by CI, you may prefer to download > them from there, see <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/2116258>. After `guix pull -C /tmp/channels.scm --allow-downgrades` from the channels.scm of that <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/2116258>, I look at your: > […] > Binary tarballs: > > https://files.ditigal.xyz/guix-release-1.5.0rc1-mirror/guix-binary-1.5.0rc1.x86_64-linux.tar.xz > (https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/16628330/details) The manual `info "(guix)Binary Installation"` says: > Note: The binary installation tarball can be (re)produced and > verified simply by running the following command in the Guix source > tree: > > make guix-binary.SYSTEM.tar.xz > > ... which, in turn, runs: > > guix pack -s SYSTEM --localstatedir \ > --profile-name=current-guix guix So I run make guix-binary.x86_64-linux.tar.xz and the resulting tarball has minor differences. diffoscope shows that its contained disarchive, guile-git and guile-lib packages have few differences in a few compiled .go files. So these packages are not reproducible, but otherwise Guix is the same. I do use substitutes, so it is not a proper, clean test. The source code, > • Sources > > https://files.ditigal.xyz/guix-release-1.5.0rc1-ruther/guix-1.5.0rc1.tar.gz is the same as `make dist-with-updated-version` except for the folder name inside the archive is guix-1.5.0rc1.1-d33978. Overall, I am happy with janneke’s reproducibility work. Putting him in Cc. All is good, I think. But maybe janneke, Rutherther, Noé Lopez or release team members know better reproducibility instructions than those I found which maybe can go with the release communications. Regards, Florian
