Il 17/03/2018 00:40, Kent Fredric ha scritto:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:55:46 +0900
> Benda Xu <hero...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Ha, indeed many packages hardwrites "date of build" alike. That is a
>> hard question to define reproducibility. I would rather ignore the
>> timestamps when comparing two binaries.
> If a hard-timestamp is to be used, assuming you have portage via git,
> then it might be desirable to hard-timestamp based on either:
>
> a) the timestamp of the specific ebuilds last change
> b) the timestamp of the most-recent-of specific ebuild+eclass's last change
> c) the timestamp of the specific ebuilds initial commit
d) for rsync users the timestamp of the repository, kept in metadata/,
the timestamp of last commit otherwise
>
> I'm not sure which one is more practical though.
>
> Sounds like it would be an "experts" tool which would become far more
> practical
> for people who are using custom overlays to maintain their production systems,
> and those people can naturally make guarantees about their repos being in git,
> and they can decide which of those 3 options ( well, the ones we
> provide at least ) are most suited to what they're doing.
>
