Re: unexpected reproducibility of reproducible blog post?

[Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net>]

Hi Simon,

> Based on the nice blog post [1], instead of really travelling I just
> travel in time. :-)
> If I read correctly and if I did not do any mistake, the final hash is
> not the same now than before. It is not what I was expecting.
>
> Expected output (blog post):
> /gnu/store/iqn9yyvi8im18g7y9f064lw9s9knxp0w-docker-pack.tar
>
> Returned output:
> /gnu/store/klisfr3a4wxb9dc5sgibb45kky72kg65-docker-pack.tar
>
> Has the file 'guix-version-for-reproduction.txt' been tracked?

Unfortunately not. The repository for the preparation of the post
is at 

  https://github.com/khinsen/reproducibility-with-guix/

but it doesn't contain the file 'guix-version-for-reproduction.txt'.

> Is really the commit 769b96b62e8c09b078f73adc09fb860505920f8f used to
> produce the Docker image listed in the blog post?

Hard to say... I can't play with that right now because I am running
jobs on my computer that eat all the memory.

One question I have been wondering about is the possibility of grafts
being an obstacle to reproducibility. Grafts are something I don't
really understand yet, so I cannot answer this question. In particular,
does a grafted package get a different hash from a package built with
grafting disabled?

Cheers,
  Konrad.