Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:26:29 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r350550 - head/share/mk Message-ID: <1603dc7f-f840-3ad6-b1e5-68871eeead9b@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20190807201448.GA42725@bastion.zyxst.net> References: <201908030106.x7316Ibx078529@repo.freebsd.org> <20190806165614.GA41295@FreeBSD.org> <20190807201448.GA42725@bastion.zyxst.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/7/19 1:14 PM, tech-lists wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:56:14PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > >> I would like to request this commit be reverted. While the original >> commit message to enable this knob stated the commit would be reverted >> after stable/12 branched, I have seen no public complaints about >> enabling REPRODUCIBLE_BUILD by default (and quite honestly, do not see >> the benefit of disabling it by default -- why wouldn't we want >> reproducibility?). >> >> To me, this feels like a step backwards, with no tangible benefit. >> Note, newvers.sh does properly detect a modified tree if it can find >> the VCS metadata directory (i.e., .git, .svn) -- I know this because >> I personally helped with it. >> >> In my opinion, those that want the non-reproducible metadata included in >> output from 'uname -a' should set WITHOUT_REPRODUCIBLE_BUILDS in their >> src.conf. Turning off a sane default for the benefit of what I suspect >> is likely a short list of use cases feels like a step in the wrong >> direction. > > Well, my use case is that I have some machines that follow 12-stable. > > I'm not a developer. But I keep an eye on things like security bulletins > etc and when they come out it usually gives something like 'affecting > 12-STABLE prior to r<number> something like that. And I can easily look > at uname -a to see if this or that 12-stable machine needs to be patched > or whatever. That is, if reproductible_build is turned off. (or > without_reproductible_build is turned on) > > Or if I mail to stable@ asking for help I'll want to say *exactly* what > sources I've built from. And sometimes someone will say "oh that was > fixed after r<suchandsuch>" and so I'll grab sources after that revision > if I can and fix the problem. > > But like I say I'm not a dev. I'd guess, though, that lots of non-devs > use the revision info if they follow -stable, so if I'm right in thinking > this, it'd be a short list of use cases but lots of affected people. > > unless there's another way to get the svn rev number? > > Why turn off this functionality by default? If you have checked out the sources using svn, I believe you get the svn revision number in uname -a even with the knob enabled. The knob is more about other metadata fields such as the source pathname and date/time of the build. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1603dc7f-f840-3ad6-b1e5-68871eeead9b>