Removing build metadata, for reproducible kernel builds

John Baldwin jhb at
Fri Dec 4 01:15:23 UTC 2015

On Thursday, December 03, 2015 06:11:27 PM Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> > Reproducibility is good for some people, and completely useless for
> > others, and the people who need it aren't going to mind turning on a
> > knob or two to get what they want.
> Possibly. I don't have any strong opinions on whether the default is 
> "reproducible" or "full of information that helps me identify busted 
> kernels”, just so long as "reproducible" is available and easy to turn 
> on. And my personal opinion is that it should be turned on for public 
> releases: I think that being able to validate the kernel is more 
> important than knowing what machine it was built on.

FYI, I think most folks agree that releases should be reproducible (and
in particular the release bits that are shipped).  I think the primary
question people have raised is what the default behavior is if someone
is building a kernel themselves vs a kernel from an ISO or freebsd-update.

Secondly, the whole kgdb/crashinfo thing does sort of matter if we want
users to have usable crash summaries when reporting bugs on release
installs.  (crashinfo matters more here than kgdb -n's hackish thing,
and crashinfo just needs 'version' to be unique)

John Baldwin

More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list