Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > granted there are things like this, but reproducible builds would be
>> > fantastic and well worth the effort.
>> If you're talking about "byte-for-byte identical builds", then no, that
>> would be a tremendous amount of effort for no practical gain. There's no
>> reason to consider it a bug for packages to not be byte-for-byte identical
>> between two builds, so why should anyone waste time trying to "fix" it?
>
> We should expect that given the same source, headers, and libraries, we
> would get the same bytes out of a build every time. Any deviation from this
> would indicate something different, or erratic. If it doesn't cause
> problems, fine, but I'd raise an eyebrow over it anyway.
>
> I guess it depends on how anal and pedantic you want to get.
>
> - Tyler
I think even gcc has some optimizing code with randomness in it. The
randomness is there to avoid deadlocks or just plain guessing a few
times and picking the best.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
