Debian reproducibility statistics

Post by entelechy » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 2:04 PM UTC

moosingin3space wrote: post #40

entelechy wrote: post #31

I wonder if switching from cmake to buck[1] and buckaroo[2] would simplify and increase reproducibility. [1] https://buckbuild.com [2] https://buckaroo.pm

Based on the experiences of systemd, gtk, and X11 in switching to Meson, I'd think Meson might be the best choice here. While Buck, Bazel, Pants, etc. are designed for large projects, Meson is designed for small-to-medium-size projects and integrates with pkg-config, which in turn should provide simpler integration with distribution package managers. My experiences with Bazel demonstrated that integration with distri…

why I'm consider that using pkg-config in buck may break reproducibility: https://github.com/facebook/buck/issues/1430

Post by cstrahan » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 3:47 PM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #43

noselasd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it can't have "nothing to do" ? Many debian source packages specifies dependencies using >= , something has to account for performing a build using the same minor version of such a dependency.

Yes, but that's a different problem from reproducible builds. The only thing that reproducible builds is solving is ensuring that the same package built with the same dependencies in the same environment results in the same output.

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Taken directly from https://reproducible-builds.org/:

"Second, the set of tools used to perform the build and more generally the build environment should either be recorded or pre-defined"

FWIW, I'm a committer on a Linux distro specifically constructed to guarantee build reproducibility (nixos.org), so I'm pretty sure I know what is generally meant by "reproducible builds" in common industry vernacular. Byte-for-byte is important, but that's hardly the whole picture.

Re: Debian reproducibility statistics

Re: Debian reproducibility statistics