On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:09 PM, jdow <j...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On 2014-07-01 08:16, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: > >> The *goal* of CentOS used to be binary compatibility, even if it was >> never 100% achieved. Since the acquisition by Red Hat, that is no >> longer even the goal, for obvious reasons. > > Pat, this is nominally impossible with modern compilers as I discovered a > long time ago.
Incorrect. > If GNU C has this same feature It does not, and it never has. See https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds or https://blog.torproject.org/category/tags/deterministic-builds or http://www.chromium.org/developers/testing/isolated-testing/deterministic-builds or just try a search of your own. > prattling about binary identity and so forth is nonsense. Before accusing someone of "prattling" about a topic, may I suggest learning something about it? > This RHEL traceability issue is significant as is traceability back > to creators for non-RHEL code replacements for RHEL proprietary software and > for any add-on software provided by sources in the path from SL back to > RHEL. No, "traceability" is the irrelevant side issue here. (Granted, binary reproducibility is also a side issue; just one where you happen to be wrong.) Once again, the only relevant question is whether and how Scientific Linux can be a rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise *and not CentOS*, when Red Hat's clear motivation and intention is to make those different things. > The issue at its base is "who do you trust"? "Whom". OK OK too pedantic. I trust the Scientific Linux team. Obviously, I do not trust Red Hat which includes CentOS. Time will tell how well my trust is placed. - Pat