Talk:Reproducible builds

Computing: Software / Security / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Bitcoin, Tor and trust

I first heard about this concept in 2011 or 2012 in relation to the Bitcoin project (now Bitcoin Core?). I believe that they were one of the first FLOSS projects to really push this as 100% required. Later I heard about it in relation to Tor. What am I saying? I am saying that examples are required. I am saying that history is required.

I would also mention trusting trust and Diverse Double-Compiling (DDC). Which while it is not the same is a related concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.61.12 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DDC requires reproducible builds of the involved compiler. The DDC-paper from David A. Wheeler also covers many aspects that I found very relevant to reproducible-builds.

Also I wanted to mention that reproducible builds is about more than just compilers. We apply it to any transformation from a source format to an output format. Be that minifying javascript into unreadable javascript or rendering .png from .svg or man-pages from asciidoc - in all cases we want outputs to be determined only by (explicit) inputs. I also noticed that some classes of nondeterminism in https://github.com/bmwiedemann/theunreproduciblepackage are not yet covered. E.g. I found multiple issues from race-conditions and uninitialized memory Wiedemann (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia itself

The Bitcoin project is not the "older" project to promote reproducible builds. Literally Nix and NixOS exist for this sole reason - in 2003.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220326041400/https://nixos.org/ - ""reproducible""
https://web.archive.org/web/20080626031302/http://nixos.org/nixos/ - ""deterministic and repeatable way""

As such, the claim "One of the older projects to promote reproducible builds is the Bitcoin project with Gitian" look (to me) as a way of promoting both Bitcoin and Gitian.

In the spirit of https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, and not https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam, one could phrase it that way : The claim seems a little uninformed, the author could look at Nix and NixOS, especially for this article describing precisely Reproducible Builds. At least the claim is historically false. Neospacewoman (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article now states "NixOS claims 100% reproducible build in June 2021." - OK to close my previous comment just above. Neospacewoman (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated section for projects using reproducible builds

Instead of grouping projects which use reproducible builds in the history section, I believe there should be a dedicated section for this. Possibly in the form of a table which shows the status of the reproducibility. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"R13y" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect R13y has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § R13y until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]