Churchyard (talk | contribs) |
Churchyard (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
We do not aim to make all Fedora packages reproducible (at least not as part of this change proposal). We just eliminate one problem that we consider the biggest blocker for reproducible builds. | We do not aim to make all Fedora packages reproducible (at least not as part of this change proposal). We just eliminate one problem that we consider the biggest blocker for reproducible builds. | ||
=== Python bytecode === | |||
When Python bytecode cache (a `.pyc` file) is built, the mtime of the corresponding Python source file (`.py`) is included in it for invalidation purposes. Since the `.pyc` file is created before RPM clamps the mtime of the `.py` file, the mtime stored in the `.pyc` file might be higher than the corresponding mtime of the `.py` file. | |||
To solve this, we will modify Python to clamp the stored mtime to `$SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` as well (when building RPM packages). Upstream Python chooses to invalidate bytecode cache based on hashes instead of mtimes when `$SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` is set, but that could cause performance issues for big files, so Fedora's Python already deviates from upstream behavior when building RPM packages. To avoid accidentally breaking the behavior when `%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch` is not set to `1`, RPM macros and buildroot policy scripts for creating the Python bytecode cache will be modified to unset `$SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` when `%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch` is not set to `1`. | |||
This behavior might be proposed upstream if it turns out to be superior to the current upstream choice, in case we [https://discuss.python.org/t/14594 won't redesign the bytecode-source relationship entirely] instead. | |||
== Feedback == | == Feedback == |
Revision as of 20:52, 8 November 2022
Reproducible builds: Clamp build mtimes to $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
Summary
The %clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch
RPM macro will be set to 1
. When an RPM package is built, mtimes of packaged files will be clamped to $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
which is already set to the date of the latest %changelog
entry. As a result, more RPM packages will be reproducible: The actual modification time of files that are e.g. modified in the %prep
section will not be reflected in the RPM package.
Owner
- Name: Miro Hrončok, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
- Email: mhroncok at redhat.com, zbyszek at in.waw.pl
Current status
- Targeted release: Fedora Linux 38
- Last updated: 2022-11-08
- FESCo issue: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
- Tracker bug: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
- Release notes tracker: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
Detailed Description
This change exists to make RPM package builds more reproducible. A common problem that prevents build reproducibility is the mtime (modification times) of the packaged files.
Suppose we package an RPM package of software called skynet
in version 1.0
. Upstream released this version at datetime A. A Fedora packager creates the RPM package at datetime B. Unfortunately, the packager needs to patch the sources in the RPM %prep
section. When the build runs at datetime C, the modification datetime of the patched file is set to C. When the build runs again in an otherwise identical environment at datetime D, the modification datetime of the patched file is set to D. As a result, the build is not bit-by-bit reproducible, because the datetime of the build is saved in the resulting package.
Patching is not necessary to make this happen. When a source file is compiled into a binary file, the modification datetime is also set to the datetime of the build. In practice, the modification datetime of many files packaged in RPM packages is dependent on when the package was actually built.
To eliminate this problem, we propose to clamp build mtimes to $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
. RPM build in Fedora already sets the $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
environment variable based on the latest %changelog
entry because the %source_date_epoch_from_changelog
macros is set to 1
. We will also set the %clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch
macro to 1
. As a result, when files are packaged to the RPM package, their modification datetimes are clamped to $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
(to the latest changelog entry datetime). Clamping means that all files which would have a modification datetime higher than $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
will have the modification datetime changed to $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
; files with mtime lower (or equal) to $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
will retain the original times.
This functionality is already implemented in RPM. We will enable it.
Non-goal
We do not aim to make all Fedora packages reproducible (at least not as part of this change proposal). We just eliminate one problem that we consider the biggest blocker for reproducible builds.
Python bytecode
When Python bytecode cache (a .pyc
file) is built, the mtime of the corresponding Python source file (.py
) is included in it for invalidation purposes. Since the .pyc
file is created before RPM clamps the mtime of the .py
file, the mtime stored in the .pyc
file might be higher than the corresponding mtime of the .py
file.
To solve this, we will modify Python to clamp the stored mtime to $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
as well (when building RPM packages). Upstream Python chooses to invalidate bytecode cache based on hashes instead of mtimes when $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
is set, but that could cause performance issues for big files, so Fedora's Python already deviates from upstream behavior when building RPM packages. To avoid accidentally breaking the behavior when %clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch
is not set to 1
, RPM macros and buildroot policy scripts for creating the Python bytecode cache will be modified to unset $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
when %clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch
is not set to 1
.
This behavior might be proposed upstream if it turns out to be superior to the current upstream choice, in case we won't redesign the bytecode-source relationship entirely instead.
Feedback
Benefit to Fedora
Scope
- Proposal owners:
- Other developers:
- Release engineering: #Releng issue number
- Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
- Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
- Alignment with Objectives:
Upgrade/compatibility impact
How To Test
User Experience
Dependencies
Contingency Plan
- Contingency mechanism: (What to do? Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)
- Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
- Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No
Documentation
N/A (not a System Wide Change)