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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail-2128--755102632 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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. >=20 > 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, Erik= --Apple-Mail-2128--755102632--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?95F3B27C-42E6-4267-9965-AC3219310C35>