From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751626AbXDBBDY (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:03:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751862AbXDBBDY (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:03:24 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.234]:37747 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751626AbXDBBDX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:03:23 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=lAjKEWpEnm0cihC7Qlw0hEgDOTurntLkvpiDOjOCig1wq3d58RtM7fPDJx3Eby1ZxDO2/ryQYeGShsSIKKPN/NB/cWREdfve2ZDp6IzEa6GtLki2pmPg55nXeph7G5+oBEd7/xSsmIPFa/dWRTvNTJYqeFMr8t5VrPpEOEJPn00= Message-ID: <478c16ae0704011803ub1d401xfd7fb2bda61a9f39@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 22:03:21 -0300 From: "Edgardo Hames" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Rebuilding and checksumming the Linux kernel In-Reply-To: <478c16ae0704011156u5a34ae96lfd88a6da16d5726a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <478c16ae0704011156u5a34ae96lfd88a6da16d5726a@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Apr 1, 6:10 pm, "David Schwartz" wrote: > > I'm working on a project with teams spread across the world and we all > > work on the same repository patching the kernel and then integrating > > into a common main branch. Even though we label the source code, we > > would like to make sure that we are all building the same kernel by > > running md5sum on the resulting binary. > > Right now, this is not possible because the kernel includes a > > timestamp and a build number on the binary. What are this timestamps > > used for? Can we just remove them? Is there any other thing that may > > lead to different binaries? (we are using the exact toolchains and > > build machines, so we can assume that the same executable is generated > > if the input source is the same). > > I think this is wrong in principle even if you can get it to work in > practice. If you want to all work on the same kernel, then keep a single > copy somewhere that you all work from. There is no reason the same source > code will or should always produce the same output. Compilers are not > generally required to be deterministic. Could you please be a little more specific? We keep toolchains in our SCM tool, so we can always retrieve a particular version of them and rebuild with them. Why shouldn't we get the same binary then? I'm really interested in hearing your opinion on this practice. Thanks, Ed -- Encontrá a "Tu psicópata favorito" http://tuxmaniac.blogspot.com The future is not what it used to be. -- Paul Valéry