News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Status update from the Reproducible Builds project. Parent comment

Re:Status update from the Reproducible Builds project by kobeya on Monday July 24, 2017 @04:33AM (#14836773)
Down-voted because that's not an argument against reproducible builds. The outputs can be bit-for-bit identical but still use an RNG for fuzz testing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Status update from the Reproducible Builds project by davexunit on Monday July 24, 2017 @09:22AM (#14838182)
A "build" often includes running the unit test suite to verify that the software works in the build environment, so randomness in the test suite can indeed lead to non-reproducible output: when a bad RNG seed causes a test failure and thus a failed build. I've spent my fair share of time debugging issues like this.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Status update from the Reproducible Builds project by kobeya on Monday July 24, 2017 @10:28AM (#14838710)
Use a PRNG seeded with the hash of the build manifest.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Status update from the Reproducible Builds project by davexunit on Monday July 24, 2017 @11:12AM (#14839082)
I don't know what a build manifest is but yeah, that sounds great. However, the test suite needs to support this. Plenty of times they do not.
[ Parent | on HN ]