On April 3, 2018 8:20:22 PM GMT+01:00, Sune Vuorela <s...@debian.org> wrote: >On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 9:14:23 PM CEST Chris Lamb wrote: >> Hi Sune! >> >> > I don't think honouring SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is the right idea under >normal >> > circumstances >> >> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "normal circumstances"? :) > >"normal circumstances" is rcc on a source file, as opposed to an >autogenerated >file. > >> How about e use S_D_E if it is setup/exported, otherwise use the >mtime >> of the file as before? > >I think that using S_D_E only makes sense if rcc is run on an >autogenerated >file, but I do think that most rcc runs is run on existing source >files. > > >I don't have a good idea to differentiate those. > >/Sune >-- >I didn’t stop pretending when I became an adult, it’s just that when I >was a >kid I was pretending that I fit into the rules and structures of this >world. >And now that I’m an adult, I pretend that those rules and structures >exist. > - zefrank
One small clarification: in my case rcc *is* run on a nongenerated resource file. It's some of the files that the resource file list that are generated and whose timestamp end up in the cpp file generated by rcc. In other hand: foo.qrc mentions bar.qm which is generated from bar.ts. rcc foo.qrc generates resource_bar.cpp which contains constant data that encodes bar.qm timestamp and this create different resource_bar.o at every build. Best regards, Thomas
