On December 8, 2014 6:00:06 PM CST, Peter Dufault <dufa...@hda.com> wrote: >I don't understand what drives this, maybe Sebastian can comment. > >I agree with Chris that requiring a documented "grep -v" in an expected >output script would assist in reproducibility and process validation. > >I also agree with Sebastian that "cmp" returning that files are >identical is very reassuring.
A blind cmp doesn't let the report include host, date, tool versions, etc. >> On Dec 8, 2014, at 16:42 , Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> On 9/12/2014 8:07 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> >wrote: >>>> On 8/12/2014 5:48 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This makes the report reproducible. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the report should include a date. I do not see any >advantage having >>>> reproducible reports. The report captures the specific instance of >the >>>> build. >>>> >>> Would it make sense to re-build on a different date and want to >>> compare the results to see there is no difference? >> >> What you build on a different date cannot be the same by definition. >> The date has changed. In a quality context if you reference the first > >> build that is what you have. You cannot reference an initial build >and >> then say you used a subsequent build because you know it is the same. > >> Where is the dated report to say they are same ? The report is about >> reporting what you did and what happened. >> >>> Maybe a flag can be turned on/off for "reproducible" builds. >> >> I do not like flags being available for things like this. The user >then >> needs to audit the setting and this moves the compliance back up to >the >> user. >> >>> Or is it the user's >>> responsibility to strip out such non-reproducible bits if they want >>> such a feature? >> >> I can understand an MD5 hash on the components built and that result >> being in a report. I have never tried to see if a repeat build of the > >> tools produces an exact binary image. >> >> I can also understand a user explicitly adding an exemption to an >audit >> process not to check the report. For example it is common to see >target >> binary images have exemptions for date and time strings embedded in >them >> and a manual audit with a hex dump to verify this is the only >difference. >> >> Chris >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@rtems.org >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >Peter >----------------- >Peter Dufault >HD Associates, Inc. Software and System Engineering > >_______________________________________________ >devel mailing list >devel@rtems.org >http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel --joel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
