please forgive me stupidity, I couldn't understand the last part of your recommendation:
Daniel Golle <dan...@makrotopia.org> wrote:
> Hence, to achieve reproducible builds we will either have to resort to
> identical containers/VMs for building or get rid of the BuildID hash
> alltogether (or use a different build-id style)
A) identical containers/VMs
B) get rid of BuildID
C) use a different build-id style
> At this point, this seems to be what Debian is doing as well in order
> to achieve reproducible kernel builds, see[1].
And which is Debian doing? :-)
> [1]: https://wiki.debian.org/SameKernel#How_this_works
I read this page and I think it's temporarily (B), but unclear if they are
going to (A).
(I prefer a path that leads to the build-id meaning that the same versions of
the same compilers on the same host OS were used, but it would be nice not to
require the same compile of those compilers...)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
