Re: bug#47615: [PATCH 1/9] gnu: bootstrap: Add support for powerpc-linux.

[Chris Marusich]

Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com> writes:

> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:
>
>> On 923bb70a1bff657125c3008f119a477e5cb57c2b
>>    gnu:glibc-for-bootstrap: Fix patch.
>>
>> Run
>>     ./pre-inst-env guix build --target=powerpc-linux-gnu bootstrap-tarballs
g>>
>> Producing
>>
>>     /gnu/store/dyj1wvayyp1ihaknkxniz1xamcf4yrhl-bootstrap-tarballs-0
>>
>> With guix hash -rx 
>> /gnu/store/dyj1wvayyp1ihaknkxniz1xamcf4yrhl-bootstrap-tarballs-0
>>
>>     02xx2ydj28pwv3vflqffinpq1icj09gzi9icm8j4bwc4lca9irxn
>
> Generally speaking, this patch looks fine to me.  Just curious, what
> sort of machines does one use for 32-bit powerpc?
>
> I want to build the bootstrap binaries, see if they're reproducible (in
> particular GCC, which I suspect won't be), and verify the hashes.
>
> It might take a few days to do that, but I'll update this thread once
> I've done it.

I repeated Efraim's steps on two different x86_64-linux Guix System
machines.  In both cases, it produced exactly the same hash.  Therefore,
it would seem these bootstrap binaries are actually reproducible.  I was
surprised by this because of my experience with bug 41669.  I expected
GCC to not be reproducible, but in this case it seems reproducible.

I wonder what's different?  The powerpc64 architecture is 64-bit, and
powerpc is 32-bit, but I wonder what else might be different that could
cause the non-reproducibility to occur only in the powerpc64-linux
case.

Anyway, this is good news for the powerpc-linux port.  It is also an
interesting clue for the investigation of bug 41669, but further
discussion about that should go there, not here.

-- 
Chris

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature