From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: bug#21803: guitarix non-reproducible hard to reproduce Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:29:36 +0100 Message-ID: <875zjhgc7j.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87sgmropu2.fsf@gnu.org> <87v9rmmah9.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2wfx0kd.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56805) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iWneu-0003U3-DM for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:30:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iWnet-0002Iz-7c for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:30:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:37492) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iWnet-0002If-43 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:30:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iWnes-0003G0-Vx for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:30:03 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: (zimoun's message of "Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:18:54 +0100") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: zimoun Cc: 21803@debbugs.gnu.org Hello, zimoun skribis: > On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 17:12, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: [...] >> My intuition :-) is that waf traverses files using directly >> opendir/readdir, which returns files in an order that=E2=80=99s file >> system-dependent. That, in turn, leads it to make .so a symlink or not >> in a non-deterministic fashion. > > Yes, it should come from the function 'os.listdir' (readdir). The > documentation [1] says: "The list is in arbitrary order." > > [1] https://docs.python.org/2/library/os.html#os.listdir > > > The function 'os.listdir' is called some times ;-) Hmm. BTW, did you try comparing both build logs, in particular the lines corresponding to the creation of the offending .so file? That might help narrow the search space. Also, we can play with disorderfs to perhaps reproduce the problem locally and be in more favorable debugging conditions. >> It would also be worth checking what others involved in the Reproducible >> Builds effort have done (Debian, openSuSE, etc.). > > Lot of sun for Debian [2] ;-) > I mean from what I understand, they do not find any reproducibility > issue and they apply only this patch [3]. Heh, OK. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.