Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:14:54 -0800 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Jonathan Anderson <jonathan@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing build metadata, for reproducible kernel builds Message-ID: <5836833.XOCYrAR3QT@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <E4AABB64-C5C7-44BD-91B9-E022D9D4D84E@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAPyFy2AYeN9XNg=b0=JMWDC9ctWarfiZ-5zQorOPhguDJgxYpg@mail.gmail.com> <1449177325.6214.14.camel@freebsd.org> <E4AABB64-C5C7-44BD-91B9-E022D9D4D84E@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, December 03, 2015 06:11:27 PM Jonathan Anderson wrote: > > Reproducibility is good for some people, and completely useless for= > > others, and the people who need it aren't going to mind turning on = a > > knob or two to get what they want. >=20 > Possibly. I don't have any strong opinions on whether the default is=20= > "reproducible" or "full of information that helps me identify busted=20= > kernels=E2=80=9D, just so long as "reproducible" is available and eas= y to turn=20 > on. And my personal opinion is that it should be turned on for public= =20 > releases: I think that being able to validate the kernel is more=20 > important than knowing what machine it was built on. FYI, I think most folks agree that releases should be reproducible (and= in particular the release bits that are shipped). I think the primary question people have raised is what the default behavior is if someone is building a kernel themselves vs a kernel from an ISO or freebsd-upda= te. Secondly, the whole kgdb/crashinfo thing does sort of matter if we want= users to have usable crash summaries when reporting bugs on release installs. (crashinfo matters more here than kgdb -n's hackish thing, and crashinfo just needs 'version' to be unique) --=20 John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5836833.XOCYrAR3QT>