From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Fri Dec 4 01:15:23 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67787A3FEC1 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:15:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 449501D39; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:15:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from ralph.baldwin.cx (c-73-231-226-104.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.226.104]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5602AB93C; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 20:15:21 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Jonathan Anderson , Ian Lepore , Ed Maste Subject: Re: Removing build metadata, for reproducible kernel builds Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:14:54 -0800 Message-ID: <5836833.XOCYrAR3QT@ralph.baldwin.cx> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (FreeBSD/10.2-STABLE; KDE/4.14.3; amd64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1449177325.6214.14.camel@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 03 Dec 2015 20:15:21 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 01:15:23 -0000 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