>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Schmitt <scdbac...@gmx.net> writes:

    Thomas> Hi,
    Thomas> Chris Lamb wrote:
    >> I just don't see this usecase of being "partly" reproducible
    >> being remotely useful to anyone, ever. I'm probably
    >> misunderstanding something, however.

    Thomas> All three possible behaviors lead to reproducibility if the
    Thomas> input trees of the ISO production runs are sufficiently
    Thomas> similar.

So, are you using a definition of reproducible different than the
resulting iso will have the same SHA-1 hash?

;If so, I think several of us would be helped if you would explain your
 definition and propose an  algorithm to determine whether two isos are
 identical under your definition.


Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to