On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:09 PM, jdow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 2014-07-01 08:16, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>
>> The *goal* of CentOS used to be binary compatibility, even if it was
>> never 100% achieved. Since the acquisition by Red Hat, that is no
>> longer even the goal, for obvious reasons.
>
> Pat, this is nominally impossible with modern compilers as I discovered a
> long time ago.

Incorrect.

> If GNU C has this same feature

It does not, and it never has.

See https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds or
https://blog.torproject.org/category/tags/deterministic-builds or
http://www.chromium.org/developers/testing/isolated-testing/deterministic-builds
or just try a search of your own.

> prattling about binary identity and so forth is nonsense.

Before accusing someone of "prattling" about a topic, may I suggest
learning something about it?

> This RHEL traceability issue is significant as is traceability back
> to creators for non-RHEL code replacements for RHEL proprietary software and
> for any add-on software provided by sources in the path from SL back to
> RHEL.

No, "traceability" is the irrelevant side issue here. (Granted, binary
reproducibility is also a side issue; just one where you happen to be
wrong.)

Once again, the only relevant question is whether and how Scientific
Linux can be a rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise *and not CentOS*, when
Red Hat's clear motivation and intention is to make those different
things.

> The issue at its base is "who do you trust"?

"Whom". OK OK too pedantic.

I trust the Scientific Linux team. Obviously, I do not trust Red Hat
which includes CentOS. Time will tell how well my trust is placed.

 - Pat