From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Boskovits?= Subject: Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:47:03 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87bmknzjx1.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3nqwmb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87efpcsp3m.fsf@gnu.org> <87ineneql0.fsf@gnu.org> <88b0ebb2-3bed-adbd-7348-51940f1607b9@crazy-compilers.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143f5345cb40e055d4f0353" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39288) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBfrw-0003kd-4h for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 06:47:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBfru-0005sF-WD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 06:47:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: <88b0ebb2-3bed-adbd-7348-51940f1607b9@crazy-compilers.com> 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: Hartmut Goebel Cc: Guix-devel --001a1143f5345cb40e055d4f0353 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, I think we should try the patch the bytecode complier way. WDYT? Rekado mentioned that setting the times would be an easier way to go, but breaks some tests... I guess they were also discussing options on irc. You are right, backporting does not seem to be a good option here. Regarding message of ng0: Debian does not ship pyc files, they compile them at install time, so this reproducibility issue does not affect them. 2017-11-06 11:19 GMT+01:00 Hartmut Goebel : > Am 06.11.2017 um 09:52 schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s: > > [15:37:41] At this stage we might as well wait for this to land > upstream: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0552/ > > So, it seems, that we are waiting for this pep to land upstream. > > Cool, thanks for the notification. > > Seems like my message did not go through: > > This change will not solve out problem! > > PEP 552 proposes a new file-format for .pyc file and a hash-based > mechanism for checking if the .pyc file is recent. This means, you can no= t > backport this changes to Python 3.6 or older. Even if you manage to > backport, this would seriously break all tools working on .pyc files. > > -- > Regards > Hartmut Goebel > > | Hartmut Goebel | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com | > | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible | > > --001a1143f5345cb40e055d4f0353 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok, I think we should try the patch the bytecode complier = way.
WDYT?

Rekado mentioned that setting the t= imes would be an easier way to go, but breaks some tests...
I guess the= y were also discussing options on irc.
You are right, backporting= does not seem to be a good option here.

Regarding= message of ng0:
Debian does not ship pyc files, they compile=C2= =A0 them at install time, so this reproducibility issue does not affect the= m.

2017-11-06 11:19 GMT+01:00 Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@crazy-c= ompilers.com>:
=20 =20 =20
Am 06.11.2017 um 09:52= schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s:
[15:37:41] <mb[m]1> At this stage we might as well wait =
for this to land
upstream: https://www.python=
.org/dev/peps/pep-0552/

So, it seems, that we are waiting for this pep to land upstream.

Cool, thanks for the notification.

Seems like my message did not go through:

This change will not solve out problem!

PEP 552 proposes a new file-format for .pyc file and a hash-based mechanism for checking if the .pyc file is recent. This means, you can not backport this changes to Python 3.6 or older. Even if you manage to backport, this would seriously break all tools working on .pyc files.

--=20
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.g=
oebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | comp=
ilers which you thought are impossible |

--001a1143f5345cb40e055d4f0353--