Hi Simon, Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi, > > On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 at 23:25, Hilton Chain via Bug reports for GNU Guix > <bug-g...@gnu.org> wrote: > >>> I can confirm the reproducibility issue. >>> >>> I have two x86_64-linux machines building guix to verify the fix, I'll apply >>> your patch once they produce matching outputs. >> >> Took me quite a while to build 5 rounds. :) >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> $ guix hash --serializer=nar >> /gnu/store/fs7x07jfn7igpkwv3alrs9by21q70y13-guix-1.4.0-26.5ab3c4c >> 0kh87wb4qn97kwzrf4igal71cjvv143j6jr2y3dwfzcy1madj1ll >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> >> Applied #74112 as 4c56d0cccdc44e12484b26332715f54768738c5f, thanks! > > Maybe I am missing something. To my knowledge, .go files produced by > Guile are not always reproducible, see bug#20272 [1]. And, from my > understanding, Guix cannot be reproducible until this bug had been > fixed. Therefore, I am not convinced that this patch is worth under > this frame considering the build-time penalty it brings. > > That’s said, maybe it’s better than nothing and the package ’guix’ is > barely built after all. I do not know. > > What people think? Perhaps we should set the default parallel-build? to #f in the guile-build-system at least in the meantime, with a prominent comment as to why and a reference to the upstream issue? Many Guile packages use the gnu-build-system so that wouldn't cover all of them like 'guix'... I'm not sure. It'd be nicer to fix the underlying guile issue (again?), but I doubt many people are up to this. -- Thanks, Maxim
