Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:35:42 +0200 From: Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Deterministic builds? Message-ID: <95F3B27C-42E6-4267-9965-AC3219310C35@cederstrand.dk> In-Reply-To: <20101011084733.GM2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <718D8E86-EA2E-4D07-BAFF-5D8D093FD296@cederstrand.dk> <20101011084733.GM2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Den 11/10/2010 kl. 10.47 skrev Kostik Belousov: > > My personal opinion that the feature is nice to have. Unless the changes to > get this working are too large, and, more importantly, unless the maintenance > cost of having this in good shape is too high, sure we would better have > deterministic build results. > > Also, the deterministic builds require somebody who would monitor the > feature, either manually, or by setting some bot that automatically > checks it. Otherwise, I suspect, it will degrade. I might want to adopt the task of monitoring the feature. I'm beginning to think that it should at least be optional. Removing e.g. build times, mtimes and path to OBJDIR or SRCDIR might not make everyone happy. Any hints to why kernel module checksums don't match? Thanks, Erikhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?95F3B27C-42E6-4267-9965-AC3219310C35>