From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B18E4406E; Sun, 19 May 2024 23:11:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7FF4026A; Sun, 19 May 2024 23:11:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wfout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wfout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.146]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6803E40144 for ; Sun, 19 May 2024 23:10:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692621C000AC; Sun, 19 May 2024 17:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 19 May 2024 17:10:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1716153055; x=1716239455; bh=HeyD7gxCYa3Q8oxfpLKiiEFigRXJqtTy8SVfPf7/TJI=; b= OjMih6VwuP9NWHLdW3eIOKGKQr4z9ZDvEYdr+5V23O7QfVKMZ9TPqB1H1J8RBLxb TcT/M8cbe4m175PG0uN36LMVH5gdc+lp52pRMOwnY/qPHZt06oSp26DZ/Mlulmn+ P+hgrUftY1m3NS7zjfZJ1SlCU7W4mYaZ+sownUtelDrp0UC1BXR5kJnrDw63j2cl 8ArJgLyJCE4oWcH2nDqmkObjAuZZnisXaXMQAHVrGPcCW+Ip7h5V6DoCDvleVSut fLZXp25WB7tYYwexVCkNIZD5GW21V0OG8p6/qgV0qnohb/31Y8Ek6P+SyHYG0isd tHzPkm9zvH+eZQE61yi2oQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1716153055; x= 1716239455; bh=HeyD7gxCYa3Q8oxfpLKiiEFigRXJqtTy8SVfPf7/TJI=; b=b 0+AUdKJ+Bu5E3NewRuRSH7BoESi71AMZO16ihvmYoxCU84SzKwpLqyYy64OOVUq4 4a0+RNUyTjIvYnU1SdpnvHs2kBR8mb7EhnzSW9mejwTdCua2M5yGTZuLp1+gjdqN mxFijZPrj6Lq5QZZ2EabBKoYuwfOCCnA/I5dhGs1/Qyzw8HhGNQIO/Y/UK30+w4e ibFpHyywwADxCIXgWM3wl/HT1eIMMgv74vtG6lGmORTnDijvjrkPGjmnSeuG0qOS GaxHpzwWDJiDdK8mO/LdqWlWCagH/3afOoGXcLXSTpxeUwEEy88uK0z9/NXZbDUp M9SiZUZUW23nntZYOn/iw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrvdehkedgudehiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhho mhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeduveehieevuddutdevfffgtdegkeeuveejffejgedtgeeg kefgvdeugfefkeejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 19 May 2024 17:10:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Luca Boccassi Cc: Christian Ehrhardt , Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@redhat.com, "Mcnamara, John" Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: ensure sphinx output is reproducible Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 23:10:51 +0200 Message-ID: <6628584.G0QQBjFxQf@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20230629125838.1995751-1-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com> <2121200.bB369e8A3T@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 19/05/2024 19:23, Luca Boccassi: > On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 18:13, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 19/05/2024 18:36, Luca Boccassi: > > > On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 15:01, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 17/05/2024 13:29, Luca Boccassi: > > > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 17:04, Bruce Richardson > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > I would prefer adding an option for reproducible build > > > > > > > (which is not a common requirement). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Taking a slightly different tack, is it possible to sort the searchindex.js > > > > > > file post-build, so that even reproducible builds get the benefits of > > > > > > parallelism? > > > > > > > > > > Given the recent attacks with malicious sources being injected in open > > > > > source projects, reproducible builds are more important than ever and > > > > > should just be the default. > > > > > > > > Yes it should be the default when packaging. > > > > Why should it be the default for normal builds? > > > > > > Build reproducibility is everyone's responsibility, not just Linux > > > distributions. There should be no difference between a "normal build" > > > and a "packaging build". As far as I know, it is still fully supported > > > for DPDK consumers to take the git repository, build it and ship it > > > themselves - those cases also need their builds to be reproducible. > > > > Sorry I really don't understand this point. > > The goal of a reproducible build is to maintain a stable hash, right? > > This hash needs to be stable only when it is published, isn't it? > > So isn't it enough to give a build option for having a reproducible build? > > The goal is that issues breaking reproducibility are bugs and treated > as such. You wouldn't have a build option to allow buffer overflows or > null pointer dereferences, and so on. "The program builds > reproducibly" today and in the future has the same importance as "the > program doesn't write beyond bounds" or "the program doesn't crash" - > they are not optional qualities, they are table stakes, and > regulations are only going to get stricter. I hear the technical reasons and want to address them, but I don't understand how regulation comes in an open source project.