Hi, Steven Chamberlain <firstname.lastname@example.org> (2015-11-22): > I rewrote the patches according to KiBi's feedback and they are > now uploaded to our jessie-kfreebsd suite, and this Git branch: > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/d-i/debian-installer.git/log/?h=jessie-kfreebsd I've cherry-picked 3 patches from there onto master locally and I'm currently running diffoscope to see how that goes (and it's taking ages…): c182491b05fec16497f2bf1290cac16773d175f9 5d59fd1813e794d0821c00757dd56fd9ca25ed16 d126622567cfbe10d7f8a207a292eaab622ef73e > In my own testing on ZFS, file ordering was still an issue for the > makefs tool that builds the initrd. But if I were to try again > on UFS, I hope to be able to reproduce the entire > netboot-installer-images tarball as built by the buildds. > > This tarball includes bits that are bundled onto the official release > images by debian-cd tools. Making this reproducible is a prerequisite > for someday having reproducibly-built official release images. > > I could merge these patches into sid if they seem okay? The only > commit that should not be merged is this one, which is specific to > jessie-kfreebsd and must be slightly changed for sid: > kfreebsd: use makefs -T to clamp timestamps I suppose your time is better spent actually working on kfreebsd so that's why I decided to cherry-pick the patches myself. FWIW, I'm not exactly entirely convinced by the exporting of the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH variable from debian/rules; all other variables have been passed without exporting so I'm wondering if we shouldn't adapt this to behave like other variables, reducing possible surprise for users. I don't think that's a showstopper for a push to master though; just thinking out loud. > I expect that Linux d-i builds will have some reproducibility issues > in whatever generates the initrd or ISOs, but I may look into that > after the jessie-kfreebsd release is done. Sure thing, thanks again! Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature