Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?
Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:25:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
>> > Software.
>> That is the title of that section.
>> If you bother to read it, you'll see "We will never make the system
>> require the use of a non-free component. "
> A binary which has been compiled using a non-free compiler does not
> require non-free software to run; nor does it require the same compiler
> to be built again. If it does, then it doesn't belong in main; that is
> not in dispute.
It certainly does require the same compiler to be built again. See
"Reflections on Trusting Trust"; the choice of compiler is part of the
The source is what's needed to replicate the binary.
A compiler which compiles to PPC code, for example, won't replicate an
x86 binary. Similarly, an SSE-aware compiler is not the same as a 386 compiler.
> No, it is not. What you advocate is essentially that a later compilation
> must result in the exact same binary, disregarding the fact that our
> toolchain will change..
I think you mischaracterize your opponent's argument. Rather, we want
indistinguishable binaries. Going from gcc 2.95 to 3.4 certainly
produces changes, but not of the sort discussed here -- in this case,
he's saying it does require icc to get the useful binary.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com