reproducible vs reproduced (Re: "Reproducible build" definition in OpenSSF glossary)
David A. Wheeler
dwheeler at dwheeler.com
Sun Apr 27 20:27:04 UTC 2025
> On Apr 25, 2025, at 7:45 AM, Holger Levsen <holger at layer-acht.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
It was too late to change it years ago. It's even *more* too late to change it now :-).
I think it's a fine term. The other terms you listed *also* have problems.
...
> 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.
I would seperate those concepts, and there are already terms for two relevant cases:
* Reproducible builds = CAN BE reproduced.
* Verified reproducible builds = HAS BEEN / IS BEING reproduced & verified
I've been using the latter term & I think people immediately grasp what it means.
--- David A. Wheeler
More information about the rb-general
mailing list