> I'm not sure I understand the necessity of this. What matters for > reproducibility is that rpms install the same files; why is it important > that the rpm file itself has exactly same build time and is otherwise > identical bit by bit? >
There is actually a demand for binary reproducible packages. See for example https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/About Debian packages already clamp timestamps by default. I am not even sure you can disable this (short of unsetting SOURCE_CODE_EPOCH). The same functionality exists for RPM packages, except it is not the default behavior. > A technicality: do not patch mnacros.in, set the macro directly from > package_rpm.bbclass. > Yes, I considered this (see the [patch 0/1]). I chose to patch macros.in in the recipe rpm_4.14.0 instead because the new macro is introduced in RPM 4.14.0. I assumed we did not want to have RPM version dependencies in package_rpm.bbclass. But I have no strong feelings regarding this, I am pretty sure the new macro is here to stay in the future and it is unlikely anyone would want to use a pre-4.14.0 version of RPM either. If you think patching package_rpm.bbclass makes more sense, I can send in another patch. Juro -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
