[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: maradns reproducibility fixes and the merits of picking a random num
From: |
Vagrant Cascadian |
Subject: |
Re: maradns reproducibility fixes and the merits of picking a random number |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Jul 2022 19:36:19 -0700 |
On 2022-06-28, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
>>I am at a loss as to what to do then ... nothing and just have it be
>>unreproducible? embed a specific random number? come up with better
>>upstreamable patches?
>
> From upstream's response and my own biases and my reading of the room here,
> I'd say #2.
Hrm.
I hear Efraim say better to have unique randomness and no substitutes,
and I hear Tobias say more or less it's ok as long as upstream is right
about it being ok to embed a specific prime as other random numbers get
mixed in at runtime...
I have a slight inclination towards making it non-substituteable, but I
may just be enamored of this as an interesting solution that most
distributions do not really have the option of taking. :)
Anyone else able to weigh in?
Or actually review the code?
If we can't find someone to review the code, seems like
non-substitutable is the safest approach ... at the guaranteed loss of
reproducibility. :/
Would love to resolve this issue one way or another.
live well,
vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: maradns reproducibility fixes and the merits of picking a random number,
Vagrant Cascadian <=