Hi dkg, > And there are more questions too: what if multiple source files > contributed to the creation of the compiled artifact (e.g. "include" > directives)?
Hm, that's an excellent point. > You can also imagine a compilation regime that detects changes to a file > (e.g. via inotify) and immediately triggers recompilation -- with a fast > compiler and a coarse filesystem/archive timestamp, such a regime would > end up in the same situation (serious performance impact). Sure, but that doesn't seem like it would happen as part of a package build? > There are also problems with the digest based approach that lamby > suggests: it's significantly more expensive to do a full source > extraction and digest than it is to compare timestamp metadata. If it were hardcoded into the filenames, one wouldn't need to do anything onerous, eg. -rw-r--r-- 1 0 Oct 6 09:56 helloworld.adc83b19e793491b1c6ea0fd8b46cd9f32e592fc.class -rw-r--r-- 1 0 Oct 6 09:56 helloworld.adc83b19e793491b1c6ea0fd8b46cd9f32e592fc.clj (Not entirely serious) > It sounds to me like python has made a sensible tradeoff (accepting that > equal timestamps means OK) Just to underline, Python in Debian would not be a problem even with < unless you consider building a .deb with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH="$(date +%s)" and installing that very same .deb within same second... … but I understand you were being more general about this topic! Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-