From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mon Sep 10 17:57:54 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FB31097A87 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:57:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4546B8DE34; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:57:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id w8AHvqbo079080; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:57:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id w8AHvque079079; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:57:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201809101757.w8AHvque079079@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Enabling the WITH_REPRODUCIBLE_BUILD knob for 12.0-REL In-Reply-To: To: Ed Maste Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:57:52 -0700 (PDT) CC: FreeBSD Current X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:57:54 -0000 > On 10 September 2018 at 12:51, Rodney W. Grimes > wrote: > > > > Why not just turn this on and leave it on? > > I know a number of developers want to keep the metadata for their own > builds at least. And we do not really know what the users position is on this... and developers also run on stable/X, they may not like this flipped there, though IMHO we should not be catering so much to developers, while shooting users. > > We have essentially three different levels of metadata that are > arguably sensible: > > 1. Major/minor version, release/branch name, architecture > 2. Version control information > 3. Path, user, date, time, host > > And three kinds of working trees: > > 1. Non-versioned with/without modifications (e.g., a src tarball) > 2. git/svn/other checkout, without modifications > 3. git/svn/other checkout, with modifications > > What I'm proposing for 12.0 gives us 1+2 always (regardless of the > state of the tree). > > I think there's more discussion to be had on the mapping between the > tree type/state and amount of metadata to include. If we come to a > consensus I'll handle it, but don't want to hold up a change destined > for 12.0 with a broader discussion. I think there is more discussion to be had before we flip this knob anyplace. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org