>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Schmitt <scdbac...@gmx.net> writes:
Thomas> Hi,
Thomas> Chris Lamb wrote:
>> I just don't see this usecase of being "partly" reproducible
>> being remotely useful to anyone, ever. I'm probably
>> misunderstanding something, however.
Thomas> All three possible behaviors lead to reproducibility if the
Thomas> input trees of the ISO production runs are sufficiently
Thomas> similar.
So, are you using a definition of reproducible different than the
resulting iso will have the same SHA-1 hash?
;If so, I think several of us would be helped if you would explain your
definition and propose an algorithm to determine whether two isos are
identical under your definition.
--Sam
