reproducible vs reproduced (Re: "Reproducible build" definition in OpenSSF glossary)

[Holger Levsen]

hi,

(just FYI, food for thought, etc)

a few years^w^w^wmany years ago we discovered that "reproducible builds"
might not be the best term, but it was already too late to change it.
Not the best term, because "reproducible" is often confused with
"repeatable", because deterministic is maybe better, because the 
Debian bug tracker already had a tag "unreproducible" (meaning un-repeatable),
etc.

Rather recently (basically since I created https://reproduce.debian.net/ )
it occurred to me that "reproducible builds" for another reason is not
the best term: because noone cares about reproducible builds, because what we
really care about is whether a build has (or can be) reproduced.

"reproducible" means "this can be done", while "reproduced" means "this
has been done", which is a significant difference, but >12 years ago, when
this term was coined (or rather, spread), a fully reproduced distribution
was basically incomprehensible, the thing we could imagine where
"reproducible builds" however. So we spread that idea and here we are now. \o/

Today I see this as small but subtile difference, though I still think
it's too late to change the term. (at least quickly.)

(And I'm still pondering whether to rename reproduce.debian.net to 
reproduced.debian.net :)


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

wirklicher reichtum ist nicht privatjet fliegen, sondern sich vor dem schützen
können, was privatjet fliegen auslöst." <3 böhmermann am 3.2.23
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/attachments/20250425/65b61567/attachment.sig>