On 2021-01-08, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2021-01-08, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2021-01-07, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2021-01-07, Michael Biebl wrote: >>>> Am 07.01.21 um 18:24 schrieb Michael Biebl: >>>>> as can be seen at [1], systemd does not build reproducibly on armhf and >>>>> arm64 (while there is no problem on amd64 and i386). >>>>> >>>>> The problem is, I have no idea what the diffoscope diff [2] means and >>>>> how I can make the package build reproducibly everywhere or how I can >>>>> further investigate this. >>>>> >>>>> Any help here is greatly appreciated as I think reproducible-builds are >>>>> a great effort and I'd like to support that as much as I can. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/systemd.html >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/arm64/diffoscope-results/systemd.html >>> >>> My best wild guesses would be parallelism, filesystem ordering or locale >>> differences causing various sort ordering differences. >>> >>> I'm running a local build on arm64 with "reprotest --auto-build" to see >>> if it can help give us any better leads, will see if that shows anything >>> more useful... it could take some time on not particularly fast >>> hardware. >> >> First attempt was reproducible for me (two normalized builds and one >> varied build), though I couldn't vary the clock with reprotest >> (libfaketime appears to trigger issues with building systemd)... or >> fileordering, user, group or hostname due to some limitations my my >> typical test environment. The command I ran was: >> >> reprotest --verbose --min-cpus=1 >> --vary=-user_group,-domain_host,-fileordering,-time auto -- null > ... > > But the second attempt for some reason did produce some interesting > results... why it didn't happen the first time suggests it is not > deterministic. > > │ │ │ ├── ./usr/bin/bootctl > ... > │ │ │ │ ├── strings --all --bytes=8 {} > │ │ │ │ │ @@ -250,15 +250,15 @@ > │ │ │ │ │ SystemdOptions > │ │ │ │ │ Failed to set SystemdOptions EFI variable: %m > │ │ │ │ │ supported > │ │ │ │ │ not supported > │ │ │ │ │ Failed to query reboot-to-firmware state: %m > │ │ │ │ │ Failed to parse argument: %s > │ │ │ │ │ Failed to set reboot-to-firmware option: %m > │ │ │ │ │ -/EFI/systemd/systemd-bootaa64.efi > │ │ │ │ │ +/EFI/systemd/systemd-bootarm.efi > │ │ │ │ │ Failed to access EFI variables. Is the "efivarfs" filesystem > mounted? > │ │ │ │ │ Failed to determine current boot order: %m > > This suggests to me that the running kernel is somehow used to determine > the userspace architecture, effectively similar to: > > > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/captures_build_arch_issue.html > > > The armhf builders on tests.reproducible-builds.org for Debian do not > systematically test this. I'm not sure about the arm64 builders, but I > think they run the same kernel, so it seems unlikely to be the only > issue. Also surprised the i386 builder doesn't catch this. Then again, > it only happened on my second try, which suggests this is > non-deterministic in some way; maybe the slower armhf/aarch64 > architectures trigger it more often? > > I'll later post the results of the diffoscope output somewhere and give > a closer look.
And those results I promised: https://people.debian.org/~vagrant/reproducible/systemd.20210108.dE8pOx/ Nothing terribly obvious to me, though as mentioned, the running kernel may be a factor for the arm64 and armhf platforms. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
