Introducing: Semantically reproducible builds

[Janneke Nieuwenhuizen]

Vagrant Cascadian writes:

> On 2023-05-28, David A. Wheeler wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 May 2023 13:04:40 +0100, James Addison via rb-general
>> <rb-general at lists.reproducible-builds.org> wrote:
>>> Thanks for sharing this.
>>> 
>>> I think that the problem with this idea and name are:
>>> 
>>> - That it does not allow two or more people to share and confirm that
>>> they have the same build of some software.
>>
>> Sure they can, they just use the same process (e.g., use the same tool to
>> verify it). E.g., if you rebuild it, and the two builds are the same EXCEPT
>> for the datetime stamps, it's semantically reproducible (not fully reproducible).
>
> Do such tools actually exist, or are we talking about something
> theoretical here?  I am nervous about investing too much energy in
> something without a specific, precise, working proof of concept.

+1

Greetings,
Janneke

-- 
Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke at gnu.org>  | GNU LilyPond https://LilyPond.org
Freelance IT https://www.JoyOfSource.com | Avatar® https://AvatarAcademy.com