[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: unexpected reproducibility of reproducible blog post?
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: unexpected reproducibility of reproducible blog post? |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:51:41 +0200 |
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 18:00, Konrad Hinsen <address@hidden> wrote:
> I have also opened an issue for this:
>
> https://github.com/khinsen/reproducibility-with-guix/issues/2
I will add something overthere for tracking reproduciblity infos in the future.
> > Grafts or maybe Guile 2 -> 3?
>
> With time-machine, you run the full Guix from back then, so you run
> Guile 2 if that's what it takes. What I am not so sure about is how the
> old Guix release is built. If the build uses the equivalent of "guix
> environment guix", it would start using Guile 3.
>From [1] and assuming that the commit was the same, i.e.,
769b96b62e8c09b078f73adc09fb860505920f8f, there is also a mismatch
about the resulting binary.
Expected:
1be3c1b5d1e065017e4c56f725b1a692
Now:
2805a33e2e48f648307c6b913b69e41c
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
guix describe # f03e5ca
guix time-machine \
--commit=769b96b62e8c09b078f73adc09fb860505920f8f \
-- environment --container --ad-hoc gcc-toolchain \
-- gcc pi.c -o pi-guix
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-01/msg00192.html
>From f03e5ca, the time machine downloads the substitute:
https://ci.guix.gnu.org/nar/lzip/ij38zh495f81xpzmp4qzqz4fprczwck2-gcc-toolchain-9.2.0
> Time travelling is not as simple as it looks, but then we should have
> expected that!
I agree but it is annoying.
Because `in fine` the computations are not more reproducible than say
Debian if 3 months later we are not able to reproduce them bit-to-bit.
I do not know. Maybe it is about 'time-machine', maybe about the exact
commit used (most probable! :-)), maybe about the Guix build toolchain
(seed) used to travel back and restore the previous build toolchain.
Who knows? :-)
Well, I will try later with my desktop machine when I will be back at
the office; hoping that I did not garbage collected. :-)
Cheers,
simon