From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: znavko@disroot.org Subject: Why reproducibility is breaking by metadata? Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 04:05:02 +0000 Message-ID: <71aab7b233f9f6df36e0248c86b5e020@disroot.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]:51994) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hiWdF-00036v-Bi for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:12:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hiWdB-0004rx-G5 for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:12:31 -0400 Received: from [178.21.23.139] (port=47456 helo=knopi.disroot.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hiWd9-0004nf-R4 for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:12:29 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by disroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C380835EEF for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 06:05:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from knopi.disroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (disroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kFJCpAHaSrwq for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 06:05:02 +0200 (CEST) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: help-guix Hello, Guix Help! I am translating Guix manual and found that the author = is entirely given to reproducibility. It leads to such phrases that metad= ata breaks reproducibility when he describes '--save-provenance' flag of = 'guix pack' command here:=0A=0A'This option is not enabled by default bec= ause, like timestamps, provenance information contributes nothing to the = build process. In other words, there is an infinity of channel URLs and c= ommit IDs that can lead to the same pack. Recording such =E2=80=9Csilent= =E2=80=9D metadata in the output thus potentially breaks the source-to-bi= nary bitwise reproducibility property. '=0A=0AI did not expected such a c= ategorical statement. I think, it does not actually break reproducibility= but only complicates checks. If we have to talk about reproducibility to= ignoramus, saying 'this option breaks reproducibility option' have to ha= ve remark 'simply put' or 'plainly'.