I'll repeat my comment from last time this came up.[0] I could be wrong (and I probably am) but I feel like the term "reproducible build" has shifted/solidifie

I'll repeat my comment from last time this came up.[0] I could be wrong (and I probably am) but I feel like the term "reproducible build" has shifted/solidified since 2006 when Dolstra's thesis was first written (which itself doesn't really use that term all that much). As evidence the first wikipedia page on "Reproducible builds" seems to have appeared in 2016, a decade after Dolstra's thesis, and even that stub from 2016 appears to prefer to use the term "Deterministic compilation". Anyhow, when the Nix project originally spoke about "reproducible builds", what I understood was meant by that term was "being able to repeat the same build steps with the same inputs". Because of the lack of determinstic compilation, this doesn't always yield bit-by-bit identical outputs, but are simply presumed to be "functionally identical". There is, of course, no reason to believe that they will necessarily be functionally identical, but it is what developers take for granted every day, and if otherwise would be considered a bug somewhere in the package. With Nix, when some software "doesn't work for me, but works for you", we can indeed recursively compare the nix derivation files locating and eliminating potential differences, a debugging process I have used on occasion. I agree that "reproducible builds" now means something different, but that isn't exactly the fault of Nix advocates. I guess a new term for "being able to repeat the same build steps with the same inputs" is needed. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41953155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41953155