Hi Simon, > Based on the nice blog post [1], instead of really travelling I just > travel in time. :-) > If I read correctly and if I did not do any mistake, the final hash is > not the same now than before. It is not what I was expecting. > > Expected output (blog post): > /gnu/store/iqn9yyvi8im18g7y9f064lw9s9knxp0w-docker-pack.tar > > Returned output: > /gnu/store/klisfr3a4wxb9dc5sgibb45kky72kg65-docker-pack.tar > > Has the file 'guix-version-for-reproduction.txt' been tracked?
Unfortunately not. The repository for the preparation of the post is at https://github.com/khinsen/reproducibility-with-guix/ but it doesn't contain the file 'guix-version-for-reproduction.txt'. > Is really the commit 769b96b62e8c09b078f73adc09fb860505920f8f used to > produce the Docker image listed in the blog post? Hard to say... I can't play with that right now because I am running jobs on my computer that eat all the memory. One question I have been wondering about is the possibility of grafts being an obstacle to reproducibility. Grafts are something I don't really understand yet, so I cannot answer this question. In particular, does a grafted package get a different hash from a package built with grafting disabled? Cheers, Konrad.
