3 ms·
I am probably misunderstanding your point BUT I have actually depended on Nix for "reproducible docker images" for confidential compute usecase so that all part
by prateem_ 3y ago
I am probably misunderstanding your point BUT I have actually depended on Nix for "reproducible docker images" for confidential compute usecase so that all parties can independently verify the workload image hash. Rarely (actually only once) it did fail to produce bit identical images every other time it successfully produced bit identical images on very different machine setups. Granted this is not ISO but docker images, but I would say Nix does produce reproducible builds for many real world complex uses.
Ref:
[1] https://gitlab.com/prateem/turning-polyglot-solutions-into-trusted-images https://gitlab.com/prateem/turning-polyglot-solutions-into-t...
[2] https://discourse.nixos.org/t/docker-image-produced-by-dockertools-buildimage-not-bit-identical/31472 https://discourse.nixos.org/t/docker-image-produced-by-docke...
- Foxboron 3y agoI'm very sure you are actually just rebuilding the container images themselves, not the package tree you are depending on. Building reproducible ISOs, or container images, with a package repository as a base isn't particularly hard these days.
- prateem_ 3y agoI see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying. Even so, Nix is no worse placed than those other distributions for bit reproducibility. Correct?
- Foxboron 3y agoIt's unclear at the moment because of the limited testing (minimal ISO and a Gnome ISO) vs Arch/Debian/Guix rebuilding entire package repositories.