Oh wait, I can do this myself.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2042071468
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
In the light of the xz attack, could you please remove me from the list of
people that have direct push rights to the rpm code? I don't see why I would
need it because everything is done with pull requests, and it's just increasing
the attack surface.
--
Reply to this email directly or view
Based on a quick look, the changes did what I asked for so it's all good. If
you want to add extra tests later, that's of course okay.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2039346604
You are receiving this
Ack, s*** happens. No worries.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2039332804
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
I accidentally merged this by pushing to the wrong remote. I'm really sorry
about this.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2039325097
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
@mlschroe pushed 0 commits.
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944/files/36e2f4259ccfdf3ccf6ae271edb5fc052b0b..aa7c57c0b820a407ffd9b2ad00f990f698505df6
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #2944.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#event-12370608022
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Oh and update (some of) the tests to use the new macros, optimally add a new
one for the clamp_to_buildtime behavior.
The above nits aside, I'm not going to say no to a reproducible builds patch
that appears to have consensus from everybody :sweat_smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -240,10 +240,12 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%use_source_date_epoch_as_buildtime 0
-# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
-#
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
>
-/* Limit the maximum date to SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if defined
- * similar to the tar --clamp-mtime option
- * https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
- */
-if (srcdate &&
@keszybz commented on this pull request.
Looks nice.
> @@ -240,10 +240,12 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%use_source_date_epoch_as_buildtime 0
-# If true, make sure that timestamps in built
@mlschroe pushed 1 commit.
c9579db452e4d4c6996d30419889f831c15c68b3 Support clamping the file mtime to
the build time
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944/files/be088c0aa13707a14962d649823b696b3d5a2c7e..c9579db452e4d4c6996d30419889f831c15c68b3
You are
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -240,10 +240,12 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%use_source_date_epoch_as_buildtime 0
-# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
-#
I've updated the pull request.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2023034485
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
@mlschroe pushed 1 commit.
be088c0aa13707a14962d649823b696b3d5a2c7e Support clamping the file mtime to
the build time
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944/files/ee365274c42530286a09dad1fc83144ef478b25a..be088c0aa13707a14962d649823b696b3d5a2c7e
You are
Proposal 2 looks good to me.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2015549221
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
I think proposal 2 is more extensible. With proposal 1 we assume that no policy
except clamping would be wanted, but people are clearly interested in other
approaches. So I'd go with 2., even if initially there are no plans to provide
non-clamping choices.
--
Reply to this email directly or
Ok, let's move on with this. Time for some bike shedding.
Proposal 1:
add `%clamp_mtime}` with supported values `buildtime`, `source_date_epoch`
Proposal 2:
add `%mtime_policy` with supported values `clamp_to_buildtime`,
`clamp_to_source_data_epoch`
I added proposal 2 because the original pull
@Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request.
> @@ -245,6 +245,10 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch 0
+# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
+#
@keszybz commented on this pull request.
> @@ -245,6 +245,10 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch 0
+# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
+#
@JanZerebecki commented on this pull request.
> @@ -245,6 +245,10 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch 0
+# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
+#
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> @@ -245,6 +245,10 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch 0
+# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
+#
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -245,6 +245,10 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch 0
+# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
+#
@mlschroe pushed 2 commits.
2880adc356b3808241ab348c372f190dd48cb624 Add support for a _buildtime macro
for setting the build time manually
ee365274c42530286a09dad1fc83144ef478b25a Support clamping the file mtime to
the build time
--
View it on GitHub:
This makes it easier to reproduce a build that was done without
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. The two new macros are opt in so that the current
functionality is not touched.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944
--
25 matches
Mail list logo
