Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-07 Thread Marius Bakke
Hartmut Goebel writes: > Am 06.11.2017 um 22:29 schrieb Marius Bakke: >>> Seems like my message did not go through: >>> >>> This change will not solve out problem! >>> >>> PEP 552 proposes a new file-format for .pyc file and a hash-based >>> mechanism for checking if the .pyc file is recent. This

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-07 Thread Eric Myhre
iirc there is even an env var you can set -- PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=anyvalue -- which will prevent these .pyc files from ever being generated. There are no ill effects to this I have ever noticed in several years of having it set in my bashrc. On 6 November 2017 12:47:03 CET, "Gábor Boskovits"

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-07 Thread Hartmut Goebel
Am 07.11.2017 um 10:55 schrieb Eric Myhre: > iirc there is even an env var you can set -- PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=anyvalue > -- which will prevent these .pyc files from ever being generated. > > There are no ill effects to this I have ever noticed in several years of > having it set in my bashrc.

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-07 Thread Hartmut Goebel
Am 06.11.2017 um 22:29 schrieb Marius Bakke: >> Seems like my message did not go through: >> >> This change will not solve out problem! >> >> PEP 552 proposes a new file-format for .pyc file and a hash-based >> mechanism for checking if the .pyc file is recent. This means, you can >> not backport t

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-06 Thread Marius Bakke
Hartmut Goebel writes: > Am 06.11.2017 um 09:52 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: >>> [15:37:41] At this stage we might as well wait for this to land >>> upstream: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0552/ >>> >>> So, it seems, that we are waiting for this pep to land upstream. >> Cool, thanks for the no

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-06 Thread Marius Bakke
Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hello, > > Gábor Boskovits skribis: > >> Yesteday we had a discussion about that on irc. >> Here it goes: >> >> >> [15:15:16] hello guix! >> [15:16:01] do we have a proposed way to build pyc files >> reproducibly? >> [15:16:50] I've read in the report, that we are no

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-06 Thread Gábor Boskovits
Ok, I think we should try the patch the bytecode complier way. WDYT? Rekado mentioned that setting the times would be an easier way to go, but breaks some tests... I guess they were also discussing options on irc. You are right, backporting does not seem to be a good option here. Regarding messag

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-06 Thread Hartmut Goebel
Am 06.11.2017 um 09:52 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: >> [15:37:41] At this stage we might as well wait for this to land >> upstream: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0552/ >> >> So, it seems, that we are waiting for this pep to land upstream. > Cool, thanks for the notification. Seems like my messa

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-06 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, Gábor Boskovits skribis: > Yesteday we had a discussion about that on irc. > Here it goes: > > > [15:15:16] hello guix! > [15:16:01] do we have a proposed way to build pyc files > reproducibly? > [15:16:50] I've read in the report, that we are not there yet, but > is someone working on

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-05 Thread ng0
Gábor Boskovits transcribed 5.3K bytes: > Yesteday we had a discussion about that on irc. > Here it goes: > > > [15:15:16] hello guix! > [15:16:01] do we have a proposed way to build pyc files > reproducibly? > [15:16:50] I've read in the report, that we are not there yet, but > is someone wor

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-05 Thread Hartmut Goebel
Am 05.11.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Gábor Boskovits: > [15:37:41]At this stage we might as well wait for this to land > upstream: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0552/ Bad news: PEP 552 proposes a new file-format for .pyc file, so this change can not be back-ported to Python 3.6 and older. -- Reg

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-05 Thread Gábor Boskovits
Yesteday we had a discussion about that on irc. Here it goes: [15:15:16] hello guix! [15:16:01] do we have a proposed way to build pyc files reproducibly? [15:16:50] I've read in the report, that we are not there yet, but is someone working on it? [15:17:58] g_bor: This is the report you ment

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-11-05 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Jan Nieuwenhuizen skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Here’s an update on reproducibility in Guix: >> >> >> https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/news/reproducible-builds-a-status-update.html > > At least 78% to possibly 91% reproduciblility of packages is not bad. > > Is there a (small) core

Re: Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-10-31 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Ludovic Courtès writes: > Here’s an update on reproducibility in Guix: > > > https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/news/reproducible-builds-a-status-update.html At least 78% to possibly 91% reproduciblility of packages is not bad. Is there a (small) core that is already 100% reprocucible, like th

Status update on reproducible builds in Guix

2017-10-31 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello Guix! Here’s an update on reproducibility in Guix: https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/news/reproducible-builds-a-status-update.html Happy hacking! :-) Ludo’.