svn commit: r350550 - head/share/mk

[Scott Long]

> On Aug 7, 2019, at 10:00 AM, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On 8/6/19 9:56 AM, Glen Barber wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 01:06:18AM +0000, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> Author: jhb
>>> Date: Sat Aug  3 01:06:17 2019
>>> New Revision: 350550
>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/350550
>>> 
>>> Log:
>>>  Flip REPRODUCIBLE_BUILD back to off by default in head.
>>> 
>>>  Having the full uname output can be useful on head even with
>>>  unmodified trees or trees that newvers.sh fails to recognize as
>>>  modified.
>>> 
>>>  Reviewed by:	emaste
>>>  Differential Revision:	https://reviews.freebsd.org/D20895
>>> 
>> 
>> I would like to request this commit be reverted.  While the original
>> commit message to enable this knob stated the commit would be reverted
>> after stable/12 branched, I have seen no public complaints about
>> enabling REPRODUCIBLE_BUILD by default (and quite honestly, do not see
>> the benefit of disabling it by default -- why wouldn't we want
>> reproducibility?).
>> 
>> To me, this feels like a step backwards, with no tangible benefit.
>> Note, newvers.sh does properly detect a modified tree if it can find
>> the VCS metadata directory (i.e., .git, .svn) -- I know this because
>> I personally helped with it.
>> 
>> In my opinion, those that want the non-reproducible metadata included in
>> output from 'uname -a' should set WITHOUT_REPRODUCIBLE_BUILDS in their
>> src.conf.  Turning off a sane default for the benefit of what I suspect
>> is likely a short list of use cases feels like a step in the wrong
>> direction.
> 
> My arguments for flipping this in head (and head only) are that the data
> provided in uname -a when this is disabled is useful for development, and
> that in head we do tailor settings towards development (e.g. GENERIC in
> head vs GENERIC in stable).

I’m in favor of how this works at the moment.  It was a bit jarring to me when
the reproducible build flag was turned on and I lost all of the metadata that
I subconsciously use during development.  I think that what John has done
is an appropriate compromise and is in line with how we’ve treated similar
development-facilitating features in the past, i.e. WITNESS/INVARIANTS,
malloc-debug.

Scott