> On 27 September 2018 at 06:46, tech-lists wrote:
> >
> > So, I want to know where and when each system was compiled.
> > Why lose this information by default?
>
> This comes down to the simple fact that our build / release process
> does not currently distinguish between building a world or
On 27 September 2018 at 06:46, tech-lists wrote:
>
> So, I want to know where and when each system was compiled.
> Why lose this information by default?
This comes down to the simple fact that our build / release process
does not currently distinguish between building a world or kernel
that's
On 11/09/2018 20:35, Ed Maste wrote:
On 11 September 2018 at 07:35, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
I prefer releng, rather than stable, to make it default.
Binary releases requiring reproducible builds are built from
release and releng branches.
This might be the reasonable long-term strategy, but we
> On 11 September 2018 at 07:35, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> > I prefer releng, rather than stable, to make it default.
> > Binary releases requiring reproducible builds are built from
> > release and releng branches.
>
> This might be the reasonable long-term strategy, but we don't yet have
>
On 11 September 2018 at 07:35, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> I prefer releng, rather than stable, to make it default.
> Binary releases requiring reproducible builds are built from
> release and releng branches.
This might be the reasonable long-term strategy, but we don't yet have
experience running
I prefer releng, rather than stable, to make it default.
Binary releases requiring reproducible builds are built from
release and releng branches.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:56:14 -0400
Ed Maste wrote:
> The FreeBSD base system is a reproducible build[1] with a minor
> exception: the build
On 9/10/18 10:55 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> On 9/10/18 9:51 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
The FreeBSD base system is a reproducible build[1] with a minor
exception: the build metadata (timestamps, user, hostname, etc.)
included in the kernel and loader.
With the default,
On 10 September 2018 at 14:52, Ed Maste wrote:
>
> I brought this up on -arch in 2015...
That said, the kgdb -n issue was brought up in the old thread and it
seems I did forget about it. I don't think we should cater too much to
the needs of the deprecated in-tree kgdb, but we should make sure
On 10 September 2018 at 13:57, Rodney W. Grimes
wrote:
>>
>> I know a number of developers want to keep the metadata for their own
>> builds at least.
>
> And we do not really know what the users position is on this...
If users are building FreeBSD from source they can set the knob
however they
> On 10 September 2018 at 12:51, Rodney W. Grimes
> wrote:
> >
> > Why not just turn this on and leave it on?
>
> I know a number of developers want to keep the metadata for their own
> builds at least.
And we do not really know what the users position is on this...
and developers also run on
> On 9/10/18 9:51 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >> The FreeBSD base system is a reproducible build[1] with a minor
> >> exception: the build metadata (timestamps, user, hostname, etc.)
> >> included in the kernel and loader.
> >>
> >> With the default, non-reproducible build the kernel ident looks
On 10 September 2018 at 12:51, Rodney W. Grimes
wrote:
>
> Why not just turn this on and leave it on?
I know a number of developers want to keep the metadata for their own
builds at least.
We have essentially three different levels of metadata that are
arguably sensible:
1. Major/minor
On 9/10/18 9:51 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> The FreeBSD base system is a reproducible build[1] with a minor
>> exception: the build metadata (timestamps, user, hostname, etc.)
>> included in the kernel and loader.
>>
>> With the default, non-reproducible build the kernel ident looks like:
>>
>>
> The FreeBSD base system is a reproducible build[1] with a minor
> exception: the build metadata (timestamps, user, hostname, etc.)
> included in the kernel and loader.
>
> With the default, non-reproducible build the kernel ident looks like:
>
> FreeBSD 12.0-ALPHA5 #4 r338195: Mon Jan 1
Hi Ed,
I think that sounds great. In the future, could we go even further and,
by default, only emit date/user/path if the source tree is “dirty”
with respect to SVN? If the build really is reproducible, that data
should only be informative when building something that doesn’t match
a
On 10 September 2018 at 11:11, Jonathan Anderson
wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> I think that sounds great. In the future, could we go even further and, by
> default, only emit date/user/path if the source tree is “dirty” with respect
> to SVN? If the build really is reproducible, that data should only be
>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:58 AM Ed Maste wrote:
> The FreeBSD base system is a reproducible build[1] with a minor
> exception: the build metadata (timestamps, user, hostname, etc.)
> included in the kernel and loader.
>
> With the default, non-reproducible build the kernel ident looks like:
>
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
