Re: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper

Hi, On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 at 11:09, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> Please bear with me as I again belabor the same point without receiving >> public support. Building packages should be separate from testing them. > > In general, I agree... sort of. > > I do see value in build-time tests preventing

Re: Turning off tests leads to a different store item (was: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper)

Hi, On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 at 17:52, Suhail wrote: > If not, why should skipping the tests result in a different derivation > tree? The store path is different because it hashes all the inputs, included the builder script; from my understanding. For instance, consider the package ’hello’. The de

Re: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper

Hi, On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 at 17:06, Suhail wrote: > Are there related discussions/plans to > better address some of the issues you point out in the post (over and > above those that are linked from the post)? The current work in progress is to improve the coverage by

Re: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper

On 2023-10-31, Felix Lechner via wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31 2023, Julien Lepiller wrote: > >> You could skip tests, but that would build a different derivation >> tree, so it might affect reproducibility > > Those shortfalls are a consequence of our packaging habits. In an ideal > world, would running

Turning off tests leads to a different store item (was: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper)

Felix Lechner via writes: > On Tue, Oct 31 2023, Julien Lepiller wrote: > >> You could skip tests, but that would build a different derivation >> tree, so it might affect reproducibility > > Those shortfalls are a consequence of our packaging habits. In an ideal > world, would running a test suit

Re: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper

Simon Tournier writes: > Sadly, it is a known issue: > > ... > > https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/guix.html#Invoking-guix-time_002dmachine Thank you for the reference; much appreciated! > For an immediate fix, you can do something along these lines: > > sudo timedatectl set-nt

Re: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper

Julien Lepiller writes: > That's openssl failing due to a time-dependent test. Try making your system > time > something around 2010 and don't let ntpd set it back to today until openssl is > built. Thanks; that worked. > You could skip tests, but that would build a different derivation tree,

Re: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper

Hi everyone, On Tue, Oct 31 2023, Julien Lepiller wrote: > You could skip tests, but that would build a different derivation > tree, so it might affect reproducibility Those shortfalls are a consequence of our packaging habits. In an ideal world, would running a test suite ever build a different

Re: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper

Hi, Thanks for the attempt and the report. On dim., 29 oct. 2023 at 18:44, Suhail wrote: > . [...] > $> guix time-machine -C channels.scm -- build -f guix.scm [...] > As can be seen in the attached

Re: Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper

That's openssl failing due to a time-dependent test. Try making your system time something around 2010 and don't let ntpd set it back to today until openssl is built. You could skip tests, but that would build a different derivation tree, so it might affect reproducibility (probably not): --wit

Unable to build "Ten Years Reproducibility Challenge" paper

Hi Guix, I am relatively new to Guix. I recently came across this blog post: . In trying to build and run the evaluation as documented in , I'm encoun