Early work

A goal was to minimise the conditions needed to reproduce a binary.

.buildinfo files (“buildinfo files”) would be a formula to reproduce a build. It should be small as possible.

They don’t/can’t describe every possible input; [a] build process [can be] affected by obscure things or external, variable factors.

  1. buildinfo files: record inputs to the build that produced the output, so that you can recreate its state.

  2. analysis of buildinfo and outputs: as more builders provide buildinfo files, we can look for intersections (reproducible binaries), and causes of any differences (non-reproducibility)

  3. the ideal (reproducible) build would depend only the source code and build dependencies

buildinfo files should:

  • contain the minimal information needed to produce a given binary
  • be small, compact, and easily distributable

buildinfo files might contain:

  • source package (name, version, hash?)
  • binaries produced (name, arch, checksums)
  • build dependencies (recursively)
  • build path (until recently?)
  • environment variables (since recently?)

In Debian, buildinfo is a separate file.

In Arch Linux, buildinfo is included in the package files (but signatures are detached).

Consuming and aggregating buildinfo files:

in Debian, buildinfo files are used when:

  • DD uploads a package
  • debian-ftp system distributes packages
  • end-user installs packages

and now we also realised:

  • rebuilders
  • buildinfo distributors

Further work

We want to collate and distribute buildinfo files from external parties too; not just those from Debian developers and the official builds.

Collecting and distributing those, is a quite different task than just distributing buildinfo from Debian’s official builds.

buildinfo.debian.net already collects and distributes some non-official buildinfo files.

We will need to write tools making it easy to test [reproducibility] and submit buildinfo, and tools to retrieve buildinfo files/signatures when installing.

Signed buildinfos save people from having to build every package themselves: it gives them sufficient confidence to trust pre-built binaries.

Ongoing concerns

buildinfo files should to be detailed enough to explain the causes of non-reproducibility; but too much information ($HOME, hostname, installed packaged versions)

An argument arose that a normalised build environment avoids lots of reproducibility issues, like build path, environment, etc., affecting the build. Whilst that would be easier, some of us think that is really a bug in the software that ought to be fixed.

In the extreme case, when a build-dependency affects an output binary, we may need to generate a new set of buildinfo files describing that situation.