all messages for Guix-related lists mirrored at yhetil.org
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* Cross-distro reproducible build patches
@ 2017-01-05  9:00 Ludovic Courtès
  2017-01-06  1:16 ` Ben Woodcroft
  2017-01-12 22:18 ` Marius Bakke
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2017-01-05  9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: guix-devel

Hello Guix!

A new initiative to share repro-build patches has started as a followup
to the Reproducible Build Summit:

  http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/2017-January/000222.html
  https://github.com/distropatches/reproducible-builds

If anyone would like to help out by posting the patches that we have to
this repo, that would be nice.

It would scale better if we could easily list repro-build patches and
snippets from the patches that we have.

A quick hack gives this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(ice-9 ftw)
scheme@(guile-user)> (define (grep file)
		       (call-with-input-file file
			 (lambda (port)
			   (let ((contents (read-string port)))
			     (or (string-contains-ci contents "reproducib")
				 (string-contains-ci contents "deterministic"))))))
;;; <stdin>:138:43: warning: possibly unbound variable `read-string'
scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(ice-9 rdelim)
scheme@(guile-user)> (chdir "/home/ludo/src/guix/gnu/packages/patches")
scheme@(guile-user)> (scandir "."
			      (lambda (file)
				(and (string-suffix? ".patch" file)
				     (grep file))))
$3 = ("awesome-reproducible-png.patch" "hdf4-reproducibility.patch" "libbonobo-activation-test-race.patch" "libxslt-generated-ids.patch" "metabat-remove-compilation-date.patch" "nasm-no-ps-pdf.patch" "perl-deterministic-ordering.patch" "python-2-deterministic-build-info.patch" "python-3-deterministic-build-info.patch" "tcl-mkindex-deterministic.patch" "unzip-remove-build-date.patch")
scheme@(guile-user)> (length $3)
$4 = 11
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

… but I think a number things are written as snippets rather than actual
patches.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Cross-distro reproducible build patches
  2017-01-05  9:00 Cross-distro reproducible build patches Ludovic Courtès
@ 2017-01-06  1:16 ` Ben Woodcroft
  2017-01-06 13:20   ` Ludovic Courtès
  2017-01-12 22:18 ` Marius Bakke
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ben Woodcroft @ 2017-01-06  1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ludovic Courtès, guix-devel

Hi,


On 05/01/17 19:00, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello Guix!
>
> A new initiative to share repro-build patches has started as a followup
> to the Reproducible Build Summit:
>
>    http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/2017-January/000222.html
>    https://github.com/distropatches/reproducible-builds
Cool.

[...]
> … but I think a number things are written as snippets rather than actual
> patches.
Indeed, for instance, I just came some of these for cd-hit while 
updating it. Do you think it makes sense to convert these to patches 
where possible so that they can be shared?

Thanks, ben

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Cross-distro reproducible build patches
  2017-01-06  1:16 ` Ben Woodcroft
@ 2017-01-06 13:20   ` Ludovic Courtès
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2017-01-06 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ben Woodcroft; +Cc: guix-devel

Hi!

Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au> skribis:

> On 05/01/17 19:00, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Hello Guix!
>>
>> A new initiative to share repro-build patches has started as a followup
>> to the Reproducible Build Summit:
>>
>>    http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/2017-January/000222.html
>>    https://github.com/distropatches/reproducible-builds
> Cool.
>
> [...]
>> … but I think a number things are written as snippets rather than actual
>> patches.
> Indeed, for instance, I just came some of these for cd-hit while
> updating it. Do you think it makes sense to convert these to patches
> where possible so that they can be shared?

I think it’s important to share, but I also think that snippets are more
convenient and more expressive in some cases.  So I’d rather not convert
those snippets to patches.

That said, commented snippets may still be useful to non-Schemey
distros.

Ludo’.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Cross-distro reproducible build patches
  2017-01-05  9:00 Cross-distro reproducible build patches Ludovic Courtès
  2017-01-06  1:16 ` Ben Woodcroft
@ 2017-01-12 22:18 ` Marius Bakke
  2017-01-13 13:08   ` Ludovic Courtès
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marius Bakke @ 2017-01-12 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ludovic Courtès, guix-devel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> … but I think a number things are written as snippets rather than actual
> patches.

I think most of the snippets are trivial messing with the gcc __DATE__
and __TIME__ macros. I dug into GCC source code the other day and found
this commit:

https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfa5c0d3f3e23e4fdb14857a42de376d9ff8601c

Apparently gcc will respect SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in these functions from
version 7 onwards. We could consider backporting it.

Just thought I'd share, I'm sure this was discussed at the summit :-)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Cross-distro reproducible build patches
  2017-01-12 22:18 ` Marius Bakke
@ 2017-01-13 13:08   ` Ludovic Courtès
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2017-01-13 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marius Bakke; +Cc: guix-devel

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> … but I think a number things are written as snippets rather than actual
>> patches.
>
> I think most of the snippets are trivial messing with the gcc __DATE__
> and __TIME__ macros. I dug into GCC source code the other day and found
> this commit:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfa5c0d3f3e23e4fdb14857a42de376d9ff8601c
>
> Apparently gcc will respect SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in these functions from
> version 7 onwards. We could consider backporting it.

Definitely, that’s what I say to myself every time I write one of these
snippets.  :-)

Would you like to port it to 5.x in ‘core-updates’?  I’m pretty sure
Debian has already ported it actually.

Ludo’.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-13 13:09 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-01-05  9:00 Cross-distro reproducible build patches Ludovic Courtès
2017-01-06  1:16 ` Ben Woodcroft
2017-01-06 13:20   ` Ludovic Courtès
2017-01-12 22:18 ` Marius Bakke
2017-01-13 13:08   ` Ludovic Courtès

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.