[Reventlov]

For those wondering : it should be remembered that the reproducibility of Nix / NixOS / Nixpkgs is only a reproducibility of the sources: if the sources change, one is warned, but it is not a question of the reproducibility of the binaries (which can change at each build). This binary reproducibility of Nix / NixOS / Nixpkgs is indeed not really tested, at least not systematically.

Guix, Archlinux, Debian do the binary reproducibility better than Nix / NixOS / Nixpkgs.

Sources :

- https://r13y.com/ ( Nix* )

- https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/reproducible.ht... ( Debian )

- https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/archlinux/archlinux.ht... ( Archlinux )

- https://data.guix.gnu.org/repository/1/branch/master/latest-... (Guix, might be a bit slow to load, here is some cached copy https://archive.is/lTuPk )

[mauricioc]

To emphasize chpatrick's point below, there are two definitions of "reproducibility" in this context:

* Input reproducibility, meaning "perfect cache invalidation for inputs". Nix and Guix do this perfectly by design (which sometimes leads to too many rebuilds). This is not on the radar for Debian and Arch Linux, which handle the rebuild problem ("which packages should I rebuild if a particular source file is updated?") on an ad-hoc basis by triggering manual rebuilds.

* Output reproducibility, meaning "the build process is deterministic and will always produce the same binary". This is the topic of the OP. Nix builds packages in a sandbox, which helps but is not a silver bullet. Nix is in the same boat as Debian and Arch Linux here; indeed, distros frequently upstream patches to increase reproducibility and benefit all the other distros. In this context, https://reproducible.nixos.org is the analogue of the other links you posted, and I agree Nix reports aren't as detailed (which does not mean binary reproducibility is worse on Nix).

Your comment can be misinterpreted as saying "Nix does not do binary reproducibility very well, just input reproducibility", which is false. That's the whole point of the milestone being celebrated here!

[Foxboron]

> Your comment can be misinterpreted as saying "Nix does not do binary reproducibility very well, just input reproducibility", which is false.

It's only "false" as nobody has actually tried to rebuild the entire package repository of nixpkgs, which to my knowledge is an open problem nobody has really worked on.

The current result is "only" ~800 packages and the set has regular regressions.

[prateem_]

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-t... [2] https://discourse.nixos.org/t/docker-image-produced-by-docke...

[Foxboron]

I'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_]

I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying. Even so, Nix is no worse placed than those other distributions for bit reproducibility. Correct?

[Foxboron]

It's unclear at the moment because of the limited testing (minimal ISO and a Gnome ISO) vs Arch/Debian/Guix rebuilding entire package repositories.

[dathinab]

I think you might want to read the article.

it's about binary bit by bit reproducibility of not just the binaries but also how they get packed into an iso (i.e. r13y.com is outdated, the missing <1% where also as far as I remember a _upstream_ python regression as reproducability of binaries (ignoring the packaging into an iso) was already there a few years ago)

now when it comes to packages beyond the core iso things become complicated to compare due to the subtle but in this regard significant different ways they handle packages, e.g. a bunch of packages you would find on arch in aur you find as normal packages in nix and most of the -bin upstream packages are simply not needed with nix

in general nix makes it easier to create reproducible builds but (independent of nix) this doesn't mean that it's always possible and often needs patching which often but not always is done if you combine this with the default package repository of nix being much larger (>80k) then e.g. arch (<15k non aur) comparing percentages there isn't very useful.

through one very common misconception is that the hash in the nix store path is based on the build output, but it's instead based on all sources (weather binary not) used for building the binary in an isolated environment

this means it has not quite the security benefit some people might think it has, but in turn is necessary as it means nix can use software which is non reproducible buildable in a way which still produces reasonable reproducable deplyments (as in not necessary all bits the same but all functionality, compiler-cfgs, dependencies versions, users, configurations etc. being the same

[chpatrick]

> but it is not a question of the reproducibility of the binaries (which can change at each build). This binary reproducibility of Nix / NixOS / Nixpkgs is indeed not really tested, at least not systematically.

Isn't that exactly what your first source and OP are about? They check that the binaries are the same when built from the same sources on different machines. The point is exactly that the binaries don't change with every build.

> How are these tested?

> Each build is run twice, at different times, on different hardware running different kernels.

[Reventlov]

Yeah, that represent maybe 1% of the packages in nixpkgs (only the installation iso).

[chpatrick]

Sure but the goal is the same, binary reproducibility, and it is systematic. It's just less far along than Debian.

Also I'm pretty sure a big percent of nixpkgs is already reproducible, we just don't know for sure.

They say the next step might be the GNOME-based ISO, which would be a big achievement because it's basically a full-featured system.

[dicytea]

> Guix, Archlinux, Debian do the binary reproducibility better than Nix / NixOS / Nixpkgs.

Huh, didn't know that Arch Linux tests reproducibility. It's apparently 85.6% reproducible: https://reproducible.archlinux.org

I wonder how much work would be needed for NixOS, considering it has more than 80k packages in the official repository.

[chpatrick]

I think that's also a bit of an unfair comparison given the number of AUR packages you usually use on Arch. With nixpkgs there isn't a distinction between official and community packages.

[iopq]

Sure there is, the NUR has a few thousand community packages that are not ready for release

The nixpkgs are all official packages, it's just really easy to become a maintainer (you make a pull request adding the package you want to maintain)

[chpatrick]

I'm just saying that X% of arch official packages being reproducible isn't a complete statistic when many day to day things are in AUR, most of which are in nixpkgs not NUR.

[Foxboron]

AUR is unsupported, and the fact that nixpkgs decides to support everything is for them to decide.

Reaching for reproducible builds support in Arch is a more attainable goal than for nixpkgs. Properly maintaing 80k packages without regressions is going to be a lot more work in the long term.

[clhodapp]

That is not true at all, with respect to the aims or the reality of nixpkgs. The original post here is talking about reproducing the (binary) minimal iso, which contains a bunch of binary packages.

[Reventlov]

It is true. The original post writes about reproducing the minimal iso, which contains probably around 1% of the packages in nixpkgs. The remaining packages are not tested regarding binary reproducibility, or, at least, not in a systematic manner, which means regressions may happen regularly (which is exactly what happened with the .iso, see the previous announcement from 2021: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-unstable-s-iso-minimal-x... .)

[raboof]

While I would love testing reproducibility more systematically, it would not really have helped for the Python 3.10 regression: in this case we knew full well that it would break reproducibility even before we merged the change, but the performance advantage it unlocked seemed too big to ignore. Such trade-offs are luckily rare - I'm happy that with Python 3.11 we can now have both :)

[amarshall]

r13y.com is outdated vs. https://reproducible.nixos.org/

[watersucks]

Doesn’t the content-addressed derivation experimental feature address this issue? Instead of store hashes being input-addressed as you mention, the derivation outputs are used to calculate the store hash, which ensures binary reproducibility.

[Smaug123]

Ish. This is covered in section 6.4.1 of Eelco's thesis (https://edolstra.github.io/pubs/phd-thesis.pdf). It all becomes much simpler if evaluating a build many times can only ever result in one output, but the Nix content-addressed model does permit multiple outputs. In such cases, the system just has to choose a canonical output and use that one, rewriting hashes as necessary to canonicalise inputs which are non-canonical.

[raboof]

Not really:

With input-addressing you look things up in the store based on the input hash. You can determine the input hash yourself, but you have to trust the store to provide a response that corresponds to the sources. With Reproducible Builds you can have a third party confirm that output matches that input.

With content-addressing, you look things up in the store based on the output hash. You no longer need to trust the store here: you can check yourself the response matches the hash. However, you now have to trust who-ever told you that output hash corresponds to the input you're interested in. With Reproducible Builds you can now have a third party confirm that output hash matches that input.

I have not worked with content-addressed nix in depth yet, but my understanding is that this stores the mapping between the inputs and their output hashes in 'realizations' which are also placed in the store. Reproducible Builds will still be useful to validate this mapping is not tampered with.