[PunchyHamster]

> Anyone having to maintain a code base or a distributed fleet of devices will gain from this decision, immensely, as their operational periods come and go.

Just baking in build ID and commit is enough. What you think reproducible builds add ?

> Please don’t make bold claims about ‘no reason and little benefit’ while demonstrating ignorance of this hard fact: reproducible builds should have been the norm, in computing, from the get-go.

So far not a single person in the thread gave me concrete example (as in existing project, existing problem, no other solution can solve it). Just claiming it's better based on their feelings. Come on, be the first one.

[MomsAVoxell]

I already gave you an example, you dismissed it because you know better, but it is clear that you haven’t thought this through from the perspective of systems designers who have to deploy a base OS, with expected lifetimes of years, across a large fleet of devices.

Think industrial applications, such as rail and heavy industry transportation. We use reproducible builds here as part of a wider safety-critical protocol which guarantees that what we are running is what we expect to run - nothing more, nothing less.

Reproducible builds are certifiable. They can be relied on in environments where certification costs millions and takes years.

Think outside your consumer box for a minute.