I agree, that it is good to give it a name (I have called it
semi-reproducible before), but we should be clear on communicating the
disadvantages.
In openSUSE we have been working towards repeatable semantically
reproducible builds for over a decade [1] using our open-build-service
and a tool
> It's much easier (and lower cost) for software
> developers to create a semantically reproducible build instead of always
> creating a fully reproducible build.
> Fully reproducible builds are still a gold standard for verifying
> that a build has not been tampered with.
> However, creating full
I could see myself supporting this.
It seems appropriate for the weaker term to require more words (thereby
teeing up the opportunity to point out the distinction, which will
remain important to do as part of urging further progress). And this
proposal does fit that criteria!
Cheers!
On 2
