From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Reproducible installation images Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 10:30:58 +0100 Message-ID: <87shch4nn1.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <87r2s6btbc.fsf@gnu.org> <87a7yssv0a.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49999) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOKQT-0004Z6-CI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:31:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOKQP-0000tC-00 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:31:05 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a0c:e300::1]:36762) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOKQO-0000s9-PH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:31:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87a7yssv0a.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Fri, 08 Dec 2017 17:41:09 -0500") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> Here are the bootable USB installation images and their signatures[*]: >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guixsd-install-0.14.0.i686-linux.iso.= xz >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guixsd-install-0.14.0.i686-linux.iso.= xz.sig >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guixsd-install-0.14.0.x86_64-linux.is= o.xz >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guixsd-install-0.14.0.x86_64-linux.is= o.xz.sig >> >> Here is the QCOW2 virtual machine (VM) image and its signature: >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guixsd-vm-image-0.14.0.x86_64-linux.xz >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guixsd-vm-image-0.14.0.x86_64-linux.x= z.sig >> >> Here are the binary tarballs and their signatures[*]: >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.14.0.i686-linux.tar.xz >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.14.0.i686-linux.tar.xz.= sig >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.14.0.x86_64-linux.tar.xz >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.14.0.x86_64-linux.tar.x= z.sig >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.14.0.armhf-linux.tar.xz >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.14.0.armhf-linux.tar.xz= .sig >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.14.0.aarch64-linux.tar.= xz >> https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.14.0.aarch64-linux.tar.= xz.sig > > To enable independent verification of these installer images, it would > be helpful to include the precise commands needed to reproduce these > images, and the git commit to run them on. > > What do you think? The manual already gives those commands: https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Binary-Installation.ht= ml (bottom) https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Building-the-Installat= ion-Image.html Do you think we should show them more prominently? However, disk images are likely not bit-reproducible currently, primarily due to non-determinism in how file systems populate the disk. They might be reproducible if =E2=80=98guix system=E2=80=99 always creates = files in the same order, which is something we could enforce (perhaps that=E2=80=99s alr= eady the case). If it=E2=80=99s not sufficient, then we should look at what oth= ers in the reproducible-builds.org effort have been doing (Tails achieved reproducible ISO images, for instance, and I think OpenWrt people were looking at ext2 reproducibility.) There may also be lingering non-reproducibility issues in some of the packages included that need to be addressed. It would be good to investigate! Ludo=E2=80=99.