Christopher Allan Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Jookia <166...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:16:51AM +0200, Efraim Flashner wrote: >>>> What about taking it a step further and having a multi-level bootstrap >>>> process like when we have the core-updates? If we bootstrap away enough >>>> times >>>> would we end up with the bootstrap binaries we have now? >>> >>> From what I understand the bootstrap binaries aren't reproducible yet. >> >> Depends on what kind of reproducibility we’re talking about. It’s >> simple to build bootstrap binaries: >> >> >> https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Bootstrapping.html#Building-the-Bootstrap-Binaries >> >> I think they are all bit-for-bit reproducible (that is, you can use >> --rounds=3 and everything is fine), except for Guile due to >> <http://bugs.gnu.org/20272>.) >> >> However, if you build them today, you’ll obviously get something >> different from the bootstrap binaries we currently use, which were from >> Guile 2.0.9, libc 2.19, GCC 4.7.2, some old Coreutils, etc. >> >> HTH, >> Ludo’. > > It seems like a good idea, once that bug in Guile is fixed, to move over > to a new set of bootstrap binaries... even if this involves some > difficulty for Guix users today. It would certainly be a good thing to > do before we hit 1.0, whenever that is.
I prefer to change those binaries as rarely as possible. Intuitively (and unscientifically), it gives more confidence to keep using the same old binaries wrt. Ken Thompson attacks. Ludo’.