Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> writes: > Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes: > >> On 923bb70a1bff657125c3008f119a477e5cb57c2b >> gnu:glibc-for-bootstrap: Fix patch. >> >> Run >> ./pre-inst-env guix build --target=powerpc-linux-gnu bootstrap-tarballs g>> >> Producing >> >> /gnu/store/dyj1wvayyp1ihaknkxniz1xamcf4yrhl-bootstrap-tarballs-0 >> >> With guix hash -rx >> /gnu/store/dyj1wvayyp1ihaknkxniz1xamcf4yrhl-bootstrap-tarballs-0 >> >> 02xx2ydj28pwv3vflqffinpq1icj09gzi9icm8j4bwc4lca9irxn > > Generally speaking, this patch looks fine to me. Just curious, what > sort of machines does one use for 32-bit powerpc? > > I want to build the bootstrap binaries, see if they're reproducible (in > particular GCC, which I suspect won't be), and verify the hashes. > > It might take a few days to do that, but I'll update this thread once > I've done it.
I repeated Efraim's steps on two different x86_64-linux Guix System machines. In both cases, it produced exactly the same hash. Therefore, it would seem these bootstrap binaries are actually reproducible. I was surprised by this because of my experience with bug 41669. I expected GCC to not be reproducible, but in this case it seems reproducible. I wonder what's different? The powerpc64 architecture is 64-bit, and powerpc is 32-bit, but I wonder what else might be different that could cause the non-reproducibility to occur only in the powerpc64-linux case. Anyway, this is good news for the powerpc-linux port. It is also an interesting clue for the investigation of bug 41669, but further discussion about that should go there, not here. -- Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
