Jeroen Dekkers:
> At Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:57:55 +0200,
> Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > But, sincerely, I believe the right move for upstream would be to get
> > rid of the embedded timestamp entirely. Embedding a Git commit id would
> > make much more sense (and mabye its date) than embedding the time of the
> > build.
> I agree, but I am not so sure that we can convince every upstream
> about this, whether we should spend our time arguing about it and
> whether we should start creating more complicated patches that for
> example embed a git commit (if that's at all possible - how do you get
> the git commit when building from a tarball?) instead of creating a
> simpler patch that makes the timestamp reproducible.

For an example, recording the Git commit id is something I had to work
out for HTTPS Everywhere. See:,24:28
That's because upstream uses the commit id to find the source of a rule:

Not saying that it's nice or easy, just that it's doable.

Lunar                                .''`.                    : :Ⓐ  :  # apt-get install anarchism
                                    `. `'` 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to