Re: [Distutils] reproducible builds

On 20 March 2017 at 23:34, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017, at 01:02 PM, Robin Becker wrote: > > I guess the algorithm variation across pythons would make dictionary > order quite variable. > > For a Python based tool, I think it's reasonable that reproducing a

Re: [Distutils] reproducible builds

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017, at 01:02 PM, Robin Becker wrote: > Well now I am confused. The date / times mentioned in the debian patch > are those > we force into the documents produced by the reportlab package when it is > used. > > They would not normally be part of the package itself. Although the >

Re: [Distutils] reproducible builds

On 20/03/2017 11:35, Thomas Kluyver wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017, at 09:00 AM, Robin Becker wrote: Obviously if I have the ability to embed repr(some_object) into the document output then it will vary (unless the underlying python is reproducible). I'm not sure if debian runs the whole

Re: [Distutils] reproducible builds

As Thomas mentioned PYTHONHASHSEED is sufficient to solve non-determinism by the hashing. In my experience this hashing, along with datetimes (e.g. in the bytecode) are typically the only causes of non-determinism in Python packages. Someone from I think Debian did mention [1] that they cannot

Re: [Distutils] reproducible builds

On 18/03/2017 07:20, Nick Coghlan wrote: ... While the reproducible builds effort started in Debian and is furthest advanced there, it's not distro specific - interested developers working on other distros were already looking into it, and the Core Infrastructure Initiative has backed

Re: [Distutils] reproducible builds

On 17/03/2017 17:49, David Wilson wrote: Hey Robin, What happens if other distros decide not to use this environment variable? Do I really want distro specific code in the package? AFAIK this is seeing a great deal of use outside of Debian and even Linux, for instance GCC also supports this