Re: [PATCH] doc: ensure sphinx output is reproducible

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

20/05/2024 17:39, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:53:07 +0100
> Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 22:11, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > 19/05/2024 19:23, Luca Boccassi:  
> > > > On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 18:13, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:  
> > > > >
> > > > > 19/05/2024 18:36, Luca Boccassi:  
> > > > > > On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 15:01, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:  
> > > > > > > 17/05/2024 13:29, Luca Boccassi:  
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 17:04, Bruce Richardson
> > > > > > > > <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:  
> > > > > > > > > > I would prefer adding an option for reproducible build
> > > > > > > > > > (which is not a common requirement).
> > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > Taking a slightly different tack, is it possible to sort the searchindex.js
> > > > > > > > > file post-build, so that even reproducible builds get the benefits of
> > > > > > > > > parallelism?  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Given the recent attacks with malicious sources being injected in open
> > > > > > > > source projects, reproducible builds are more important than ever and
> > > > > > > > should just be the default.  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes it should be the default when packaging.
> > > > > > > Why should it be the default for normal builds?  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Build reproducibility is everyone's responsibility, not just Linux
> > > > > > distributions. There should be no difference between a "normal build"
> > > > > > and a "packaging build". As far as I know, it is still fully supported
> > > > > > for DPDK consumers to take the git repository, build it and ship it
> > > > > > themselves - those cases also need their builds to be reproducible.  
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry I really don't understand this point.
> > > > > The goal of a reproducible build is to maintain a stable hash, right?
> > > > > This hash needs to be stable only when it is published, isn't it?
> > > > > So isn't it enough to give a build option for having a reproducible build?  
> > > >
> > > > The goal is that issues breaking reproducibility are bugs and treated
> > > > as such. You wouldn't have a build option to allow buffer overflows or
> > > > null pointer dereferences, and so on. "The program builds
> > > > reproducibly" today and in the future has the same importance as "the
> > > > program doesn't write beyond bounds" or "the program doesn't crash" -
> > > > they are not optional qualities, they are table stakes, and
> > > > regulations are only going to get stricter.  
> > >
> > > I hear the technical reasons and want to address them, but
> > > I don't understand how regulation comes in an open source project.  
> > 
> > Because they will start affecting the companies using DPDK in their
> > products. There are some things in supply chain security that are
> > purely the purview of companies shipping the final products, like
> > providing SBOMs, but there are things that aren't, like for example
> > having processes to handle security issues, or anything that requires
> > code changes, like this issue.
> 
> Reproducible must be the default. It should not be an option

OK I think I better understand, thanks.