Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Ludo and Simon, > Sorry I replied to quickly; it should have been > ‘--disable-authentication’. > > Why? Because here you’re trying to travel to a commit that’s not part > of the “authenticated history”—that is, it’s not a descendant of the > “introductory commit”, which is the first commit

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi, Ludovic Courtès skribis: > Konrad Hinsen skribis: > >> $ guix time-machine --commit=48aa30ce73d45dc5f126f42f01e65f1be4a9b578‘> -- >> environment guix >> Updating channel 'guix' from Git repository at >> 'https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git'... >> Authenticating channel

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Konrad, On lun., 05 sept. 2022 at 09:49, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > Hi Ludo and Simon, > >> On Fri, 02 Sep 2022 at 15:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> >>> Here you would need ‘--allow-downgrades’. >> >> Maybe time-machine could advertise of this option? > > And explain what it's about. I don't

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Ludo and Simon, > On Fri, 02 Sep 2022 at 15:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Here you would need ‘--allow-downgrades’. > > Maybe time-machine could advertise of this option? And explain what it's about. I don't consider myself an absolute beginner with Guix, but I don't understand what's

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Ludo, On Fri, 02 Sep 2022 at 15:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Here you would need ‘--allow-downgrades’. Maybe time-machine could advertise of this option? Well aside, it can be indeed confusing that the version-1.x branch does not match the tag v1.x; I understand why.

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi, Konrad Hinsen skribis: > $ guix time-machine --commit=48aa30ce73d45dc5f126f42f01e65f1be4a9b578 -- > environment guix > Updating channel 'guix' from Git repository at > 'https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git'... > Authenticating channel 'guix', commits 9edb3f6 to 48aa30c (6 new

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Simon, > However, many things can be out of rail. This claim about > reproducibility over the time assumes: > > 1. compatibility of the Linux kernel > 2. availability of all the source code > 3. compatibility of the hardware > > Well, until now, nothing had been reported about #1. But, we

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Konrad, On lun., 08 août 2022 at 10:44, Konrad Hinsen wrote: >> Besides, I recently added ‘etc/time-travel-manifest.scm’ and added a >> corresponding jobset at > > Nice! Guix will be certified for time travel! [...] >> For best practices, I do

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Blake, I am late to the party. :-) On jeu., 04 août 2022 at 15:35, bl...@reproduciblemedia.com wrote: > August 4, 2022 8:43 AM, "Konrad Hinsen" wrote: >> One of our claims is that Guix can rebuild code identically as long as >> we have a machine with a Linux kernel and a POSIX filesystem.

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Ludo, > We can go back to 1.0.0, and presumably to 0.15.0, but anything older > than this is unknown territory. Even 1.0.0 isn't obvious: $ guix time-machine --commit=version-1.0.0 -- environment guix guix time-machine: error: Git error: unable to parse OID - contains invalid characters

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Ludo and Tim, Thanks for your comments and experiments! Ludovic Courtès writes: > That’s a commit from January 2018, which is a few months before the > release of 0.15.0, the first release with proper ‘guix pull’ support: Ouch. I wasn't aware that even "guix pull" happened later! >> I

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Konrad, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Konrad Hinsen skribis: > >> The package I want to rebuild and use is "nmoldyn" from Guix commit >> f250a868d8c687df08559682fa68fb4ea2a1ea69. That's the commit referenced >> in my notes, obtained via "guix describe" in early 2018. I am pretty >> sure it

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Konrad! Konrad Hinsen skribis: > The package I want to rebuild and use is "nmoldyn" from Guix commit > f250a868d8c687df08559682fa68fb4ea2a1ea69. That's the commit referenced > in my notes, obtained via "guix describe" in early 2018. I am pretty > sure it worked fine back then. That’s a

Re: A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi Konrad, Just one quick comment: August 4, 2022 8:43 AM, "Konrad Hinsen" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > One of our claims is that Guix can rebuild code identically as long as > we have a machine with a Linux kernel and a POSIX filesystem. This actually isn't the claim. Reproducibility is only

A real-life test of long-term reproducibility

Hi everyone, One of our claims is that Guix can rebuild code identically as long as we have a machine with a Linux kernel and a POSIX filesystem. This week I had an occasion to put this to a real-life test. So far it's a failure. I can guess reasons for my failed attempts, but I don't think they