Re: maradns reproducibility fixes and the merits of picking a random number

[Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1029 bytes --]

On 2022-06-28, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
>>I am at a loss as to what to do then ... nothing and just have it be
>>unreproducible? embed a specific random number? come up with better
>>upstreamable patches?
>
> From upstream's response and my own biases and my reading of the room here, I'd say #2.

Hrm.

I hear Efraim say better to have unique randomness and no substitutes,
and I hear Tobias say more or less it's ok as long as upstream is right
about it being ok to embed a specific prime as other random numbers get
mixed in at runtime...

I have a slight inclination towards making it non-substituteable, but I
may just be enamored of this as an interesting solution that most
distributions do not really have the option of taking. :)

Anyone else able to weigh in?

Or actually review the code?

If we can't find someone to review the code, seems like
non-substitutable is the safest approach ... at the guaranteed loss of
reproducibility. :/

Would love to resolve this issue one way or another.


live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]