On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 18:00, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> I have also opened an issue for this: > > https://github.com/khinsen/reproducibility-with-guix/issues/2 I will add something overthere for tracking reproduciblity infos in the future. > > Grafts or maybe Guile 2 -> 3? > > With time-machine, you run the full Guix from back then, so you run > Guile 2 if that's what it takes. What I am not so sure about is how the > old Guix release is built. If the build uses the equivalent of "guix > environment guix", it would start using Guile 3. >From [1] and assuming that the commit was the same, i.e., 769b96b62e8c09b078f73adc09fb860505920f8f, there is also a mismatch about the resulting binary. Expected: 1be3c1b5d1e065017e4c56f725b1a692 Now: 2805a33e2e48f648307c6b913b69e41c --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- guix describe # f03e5ca guix time-machine \ --commit=769b96b62e8c09b078f73adc09fb860505920f8f \ -- environment --container --ad-hoc gcc-toolchain \ -- gcc pi.c -o pi-guix --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-01/msg00192.html >From f03e5ca, the time machine downloads the substitute: https://ci.guix.gnu.org/nar/lzip/ij38zh495f81xpzmp4qzqz4fprczwck2-gcc-toolchain-9.2.0 > Time travelling is not as simple as it looks, but then we should have > expected that! I agree but it is annoying. Because `in fine` the computations are not more reproducible than say Debian if 3 months later we are not able to reproduce them bit-to-bit. I do not know. Maybe it is about 'time-machine', maybe about the exact commit used (most probable! :-)), maybe about the Guix build toolchain (seed) used to travel back and restore the previous build toolchain. Who knows? :-) Well, I will try later with my desktop machine when I will be back at the office; hoping that I did not garbage collected. :-) Cheers, simon
