On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > The comment itself doesn't indicate to me (upstream) much at all, and > a pretty ordinary attempt to figure out what it means didn't yield > much....
Hi Jason, At least in my experience, most of the time when there are reproducible build problem, it's much more likely to be something for the Debian maintainer to fix. For example, LTO builds[1] do not mix as far as reproducible builds are concerned. And given some potential code generation bugs with LTO which apparently the GCC maintainers weren't interested in addressing[2], I ultimately decided to kill the use of LTO when building e2fsprogs, since it's generally not CPU bound. Improving e2fsck times by a second or two wasn't worth dealing with user bug reports caused by compiler bugs/mischief. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/07/msg00606.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/07/msg00610.html So it's stupid stuff like the choice of compilers and CFLAGS --- and that's much more of a packaging issue than an upstream issue. It *is* possible if you're doing something baroque with embedding timestamps in generated files, but in general I suspect it's better to let the Debian package maintainer figure out any issues, and let them send patches back to you as the upstream maintainer if necessary. Cheers, - Ted