| 19 Jan 2025 |
|  Reventlov left the room. | 09:36:52 |
| 25 Jan 2025 |
|  Michael Lieberman left the room. | 04:30:18 |
| 27 Jan 2025 |
 Julien | Hello, shameless plug: I have written a research paper (and a blog post) about the bitwise reproducibility levels in nixpkgs -> https://luj.fr/blog/is-nixos-truly-reproducible.html | 14:49:38 |
| Julien | The paper is here: https://hal.science/hal-04913007 | 14:50:29 |
 Martin Schwaighofer | Congrats! I read the post and upvoted it on HN, will read the paper in the following days. 😊 | 15:35:49 |
| Martin Schwaighofer | * Congrats! I read the post and upvoted it on HN. It's a great post. Will read the paper in the following days. 😊 | 15:36:24 |
 linj | How do you treat FODs, such as source codes of packages, in your experiment? Are they substituted from cache.nixos.org or built locally? Are they treated like other packages when classified into reproducible, rebuildable and non-rebuildable? I skimmed through your blog post and paper but did not find this information. | 16:18:36 |
| Julien | we did not rebuild the FODs | 16:19:24 |
| Julien | They were substituted from the cache | 16:19:40 |
| Julien | And did not count in the statistics | 16:19:49 |
 atemu12 | FODs aren't really interesting from a r13y standpoint; they are bit-reproducible by definition. | 16:20:28 |
| atemu12 | Their primary issue is source availability | 16:20:42 |
| atemu12 | As long as you can get a FOD from somewhere, it doesn't matter | 16:21:12 |
| Julien | I'm also interested in the question: how much of nixpkgs can we rebuild without the cache (in which cas we would need to rebuild the FODs to check if source is still available), but we did not answer this question in this paper | 16:21:13 |
 raboof | Atemu: that is only true if you trust the original committer and hydra not to collude on you - which is somewhat safe to assume but also good to check, in theory. | 16:22:23 |
| atemu12 | That's a valid issue but again separate from r13y IMV | 16:23:13 |
| atemu12 | Though I guess one of the reasons to have r13y is to be able to detect such collusions | 16:24:10 |
| 30 Jan 2025 |
|  a3don left the room. | 03:11:27 |
|  Kira joined the room. | 04:22:41 |
| 31 Jan 2025 |
|  Jonas Chevalier changed their display name from Jonas Chevalier to Jonas Chevalier (FOSDEM). | 19:12:00 |
|  SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) changed their display name from SomeoneSerge to SomeoneSerge (Bruxelles). | 19:32:00 |
| raboof changed their display name from raboof to raboof@FOSDEM. | 23:54:40 |
| 1 Feb 2025 |
|  @davelester:matrix.org left the room. | 14:46:18 |
| 2 Feb 2025 |
|  pbsds changed their display name from pbsds to pbsds (FOSDEM). | 16:04:52 |
| raboof changed their display name from raboof@FOSDEM to raboof. | 22:17:48 |
| 3 Feb 2025 |
| Jonas Chevalier changed their display name from Jonas Chevalier (FOSDEM) to Jonas Chevalier. | 08:23:30 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) changed their display name from SomeoneSerge (Bruxelles) to SomeoneSerge (Gand St. Pieters). | 13:38:41 |
| pbsds changed their display name from pbsds (FOSDEM) to pbsds. | 16:25:30 |
| 4 Feb 2025 |
|  pveierland joined the room. | 04:56:47 |
| pveierland | Are there any ways to check whether certain store paths are considered reproducible, without running the checks locally? | 05:02:16 |
