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:
http://sources.debian.net/src/https-everywhere/4.0.1-1/debian/rules/?hl=9:13,24:28
http://sources.debian.net/src/https-everywhere/4.0.1-1/debian/patches/use-recorded-upstream-commit-id.patch/
That's because upstream uses the commit id to find the source of a rule:
http://sources.debian.net/src/https-everywhere/4.0.1-1/src/chrome/content/fetch-source.js/?hl=51:62

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

-- 
Lunar                                .''`. 
lu...@debian.org                    : :Ⓐ  :  # apt-get install anarchism
                                    `. `'` 
                                      `-   

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds

Reply via email to