On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 7:18 AM Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Maybe then add an option to guix pack to accept optional name? And if not > > provided, fall back to manifest->friendly-name. > > …yes, I agree. It could be nice to be able to directly name the image. > However, this would mean that the produced Docker pack would not be > bit-to-bit reproducible considering the same manifest. Other said, the > bit-to-bit reproducibility would require three inputs: the channels.scm > file describing the revision of Guix (and potentially other channels), > the manifest.scm file describing the packages and also the name provided > at Docker pack build-time. > > Cheers, > simon
The image hash already depends on `guix pack` command-line options --entry-point, --save-provenance, and --symlink as well as package transformations, --no-grafts, and --system. Since building a bit-to-bit reproducible docker image already requires replaying the command-line options, adding an optional name would not reduce reproducibility. Greg
