[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy

From: Maxime Devos
Subject: Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2022 15:10:35 +0200
User-agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1

Giovanni Biscuolo schreef op zo 12-06-2022 om 11:42 [+0200]:
> > or have packages with bundled dependencies (e.g. vendored jars).
> bundling binaries it's (is it?) for sure against the definition of a
> reproducible build, but what about bundling (source) dependencies?
> AFAIU not to bundle (source) dependencies is an additional Guix
> requirement (and it is a Good Thing™): do I miss something?

FWIW, sometimes the bundled ‘source’ dependencies contain bundled
binaries of their own.  So while AFAICT not strictly necessary for
reproducible builds, unbundling ‘source dependencies’ makes ensuring
reproducibility(*) much more convenient.

(*) i.e., the non-trivial kind of reproducibility, where things are
actually built from source instead of copying binaries.

> honestly I did not study all the
> documentation,
> but it's impossible to me to understand how a packaged upstream jar
> can be considered reproducible (and bootstrappable); maybe distros
> like NixOS are still slowly transitioning to a full reproducible
> build workflow?

It's ‘reproducible’ in the trivial sense that you can ‘reproduce’ a
scientific paper by putting it a photocopier.  That way, you can
reproduce the results, but you cannot confirm whether these results
were correct.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]