Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:18:58 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r350550 - head/share/mk Message-ID: <9c03a13c-8eed-06cb-bdef-faa1de8ea272@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201908072050.x77Ko5QD089298@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <201908072050.x77Ko5QD089298@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/7/19 1:50 PM, Rodney W. Grimes 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? >> -- >> J. > > Actually you have a very good point here. > Let me raise the issue, the rXXXXXX is infact reproducible, why is > that being excluded from reproducible builds? If I build from the > same source at the same version I get the same rXXXXX string in > the resulting file. This is reproducible. > > So WHY are we excluding rXXXXXX from the reproducible build? We don't. The svn revision is present in uname -a even for reproducible builds. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9c03a13c-8eed-06cb-bdef-faa1de8ea272>