Giovanni Biscuolo schreef op ma 13-06-2022 om 11:34 [+0200]: > Maxime I have a question for you please: do you really think that in > the NixOS community Going by the Java example, yes, at least for some of the NixOS community. I've also seen this interpretation of reproducibility in Clojure (there was some question on building things from source and reproducibility, and the response was something along the line ‘using upstream binaries is 100% reproducible’). > (or any other project mentioned in > https://reproducible-builds.org/who/projects/) the term reproducible > is > interpreted in that way? I don't know about all of them, but for Guix and Debian: no. > IMVHO if we continue using the term reproducible in that trivial way > [3] > when talking about software (this include each and every scientific > paper [4]), we will never get to any point; reproducible is what > reproducible means: https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/definition/ Exactly, trivial interpretations aren't really the point, because trivial. > [...] > I was just hoping that nowadays "reproducible" is perceived as "build > reproducible" (as defined in the definition above) by all software > developers and many users (including scientists) I'd hope so, yes. > P.S.: or you Maxime are just playng the devil's advocate? :-D No, I'm not advocating that trivial reproducibility is useful or the goal or such. My response was some speculation on an answer to the following question: > but it's impossible to me to understand how a packaged upstream jar > can be considered reproducible (and bootstrappable);