On 2022-06-28, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: >>I am at a loss as to what to do then ... nothing and just have it be >>unreproducible? embed a specific random number? come up with better >>upstreamable patches? > > From upstream's response and my own biases and my reading of the room here, > I'd say #2.
Hrm. I hear Efraim say better to have unique randomness and no substitutes, and I hear Tobias say more or less it's ok as long as upstream is right about it being ok to embed a specific prime as other random numbers get mixed in at runtime... I have a slight inclination towards making it non-substituteable, but I may just be enamored of this as an interesting solution that most distributions do not really have the option of taking. :) Anyone else able to weigh in? Or actually review the code? If we can't find someone to review the code, seems like non-substitutable is the safest approach ... at the guaranteed loss of reproducibility. :/ Would love to resolve this issue one way or another. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
