On Tue 2016-03-29 21:52:53 -0400, Holger Levsen wrote:
> it's surely progress on the gcc/clang side of things but dropping the
> build path from the .buildinfo files would be a huge step *backwards*
> for reproducibility…

No one is arguing for dropping the build path from .buildinfo files.

As we discussed at the reproducible summit, .buildinfo files serve two

 0) they document the environment used during a specific build, to a
    level of detail that should make it at least possible to reproduce
    the build.

 1) they also document things that should *not* be necessary to
    reproduce the build, but might be under some circumstances, or for
    some packages.

I think the build path falls into category (1) here.

In an ideal scenario, we could have two buildinfo files with variations
on the build environment (buildpath, minor versions of build-deps, etc)
and *still* have reproducible binary outputs.  This would let us know
that the variations in question are not things that cause variation in
the output.

> Also, c/c++ packages today only make up a small portion of the archive.
> Probably this famous someone should do a rebuild of the archive, using
> our toolchain (and this patch), using arbitrary build pathes.

yes, that would be great!


Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to