Introducing: Semantically reproducible builds

Janneke Nieuwenhuizen janneke at
Mon May 29 11:36:36 UTC 2023

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> 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.



Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke at>  | GNU LilyPond
Freelance IT | Avatar®

More information about the rb-general mailing list