Re: Finding the dump (redux)

[Ali Bahrami <ali_gnu2@emvision.com>]

On 4/19/21 8:39 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:34:19 -0500
>> Cc: schwab@linux-m68k.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>
>> I would have hoped that we tried to ensure that builds are reproducible.
>> IOW, if the source hasn't changed, the fingerprint shouldn't change
>> either.
> 
> I don't see what do reproducible builds have to do with this.  Ali
> wasn't talking about rebuilding without changes.
> 

    That's true, but we do value reproducible builds. It's
hard to know up front sometimes, what information would be
good to share, and what would widen the discussion in
an unwanted way. It just hadn't come up yet.

When we update our systems, the packaging system only
updates the bits that have changed, so reproducible builds
mean that less data travels over the wire, and less data
has to be put in place on the updated system. The savings
are substantial, especially for a package like emacs, where
in principle, the bits only change when we update to
a new release, once every year or two. I'm not an expert,
but I think GNU/Linux installers are doing similar things,
for the same reasons. Distros don't want the bits to change
unless the source does.

It would also really help with that manifest problem.
Perhaps it is "paradise lost", but "paradise lost on
source change" would be a big upgrade.

- Ali