sox-devel@lists.sourceforge.net unofficial mirror
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* Reproducible builds and SoX
@ 2015-02-13 18:06 Pascal Giard
  2015-02-25  3:02 ` Chris Bagwell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Pascal Giard @ 2015-02-13 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: sox developers list

Hi guys,
  Some work in Debian is pushing toward reproducible builds [1] and
that work is advancing quite well. At the moment, 83%+ of the whole
archive passes.

SoX isn't one of those packages though as it uses timestamps macros
[2]. These timestamps macros are only use to tell users/coders about
the date/time at which SoX or libsox were built.

It is suggested/recommended that the use of such macros be dropped
altogether [3]. While I haven't received any pressure to make a move
yet, I'm sure that'll come sooner than later.

I'm therefore asking for your opinion on this. Do you see a problem in
removing the use of those macros in SoX (thus removing that
information from sox_version_info) ? I personally don't see that
information bringing much to the table. My hunch is that it was added
in the first place because others were doing it as well. I might be
wrong tho.

Thanks,

-Pascal
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/About
[2] https://reproducible.debian.net/rb-pkg/sox.html
[3] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros
-- 
Homepage (http://organact.mine.nu)
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)
COMunité/LACIME: École de technologie supérieure (http://www.comunite.ca)
ISIP Laboratory: McGill (http://www.isip.ece.mcgill.ca)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
SoX-devel mailing list
SoX-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Reproducible builds and SoX
  2015-02-13 18:06 Reproducible builds and SoX Pascal Giard
@ 2015-02-25  3:02 ` Chris Bagwell
  2015-02-26 14:05   ` Pascal Giard
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chris Bagwell @ 2015-02-25  3:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: sox-devel


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1904 bytes --]

I've come to not like compile time timestamp showing up in output as well.
Complicates CI tests checking for behavior regressions, defeats rsync's
--hard-link option if one uses that to keep backups of past CI builds, etc.

In short term and to prevent breaking our ABI, I suggest changing that
field to be NULL in both git and patch against debian.  sox.c looks for
NULL and handles gracefully.

In longer term, I think a better plan is to output something like 'gcc -v'
outputs; the exact list of options pasted to configure script. That, I
think, is main intent of these timestamps; simple way to help detect 2
binaries reporting same version # but compiled with different
options/behavior.

Chris


On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Pascal Giard <evilynux@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>   Some work in Debian is pushing toward reproducible builds [1] and
> that work is advancing quite well. At the moment, 83%+ of the whole
> archive passes.
>
> SoX isn't one of those packages though as it uses timestamps macros
> [2]. These timestamps macros are only use to tell users/coders about
> the date/time at which SoX or libsox were built.
>
> It is suggested/recommended that the use of such macros be dropped
> altogether [3]. While I haven't received any pressure to make a move
> yet, I'm sure that'll come sooner than later.
>
> I'm therefore asking for your opinion on this. Do you see a problem in
> removing the use of those macros in SoX (thus removing that
> information from sox_version_info) ? I personally don't see that
> information bringing much to the table. My hunch is that it was added
> in the first place because others were doing it as well. I might be
> wrong tho.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Pascal
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/About
> [2] https://reproducible.debian.net/rb-pkg/sox.html
> [3] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros
> --
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2675 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 441 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the 
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 158 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
SoX-devel mailing list
SoX-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Reproducible builds and SoX
  2015-02-25  3:02 ` Chris Bagwell
@ 2015-02-26 14:05   ` Pascal Giard
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Pascal Giard @ 2015-02-26 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: sox developers list

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Chris Bagwell <chris@cnpbagwell.com> wrote:
> I've come to not like compile time timestamp showing up in output as well.
> Complicates CI tests checking for behavior regressions, defeats rsync's
> --hard-link option if one uses that to keep backups of past CI builds, etc.
>
> In short term and to prevent breaking our ABI, I suggest changing that field
> to be NULL in both git and patch against debian.  sox.c looks for NULL and
> handles gracefully.

Debian is actually frozen until the release of Jessie so I can wait
for the next minor revision.
If that does not come before unstable gets unfrozen, I'll proceed as
you suggest.

> In longer term, I think a better plan is to output something like 'gcc -v'
> outputs; the exact list of options pasted to configure script. That, I
> think, is main intent of these timestamps; simple way to help detect 2
> binaries reporting same version # but compiled with different
> options/behavior.

Sound good. To be continued...

-Pascal
-- 
Homepage (http://organact.mine.nu)
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)
COMunité/LACIME: École de technologie supérieure (http://www.comunite.ca)
ISIP Laboratory: McGill (http://www.isip.ece.mcgill.ca)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the 
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
SoX-devel mailing list
SoX-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2015-02-26 14:06 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-02-13 18:06 Reproducible builds and SoX Pascal Giard
2015-02-25  3:02 ` Chris Bagwell
2015-02-26 14:05   ` Pascal Giard

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/sox.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).