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 `. `'` `-
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducibleemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds