Stephen Kitt:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:00:11 +0200, Stephen Kitt <sk...@debian.org> wrote:
> > After a couple of fixes to binutils-mingw-w64 and mingw-w64, the latter
> > should now be reproducible.

That's good news!

> > This still involves dropping PE timestamps (see
> > https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsInPEBinaries
> > for details), which got me wondering whether it would be worth it
> > just to make --no-insert-timestamps the default in
> > binutils-mingw-w64's ld... That should fix the timestamp issue for
> > all PE binaries in Debian, without introducing any regressions that
> > I can think of.
>
> ... all PE binaries build with mingw-w64 in Debian ...

I still haven't totally understood the implication of dropping
timestamps from PE headers. So I wonder if this could break
out-of-the-archive uses.

Having `--no-insert-timestamps` by default would probably align
binutils-mingw-w64 more with binutils. The latter is built with
`--deterministic-archives` since 2.25-6.

Maybe uploading a package to unstable now (with
a NEWS file?) could give enough time for issues to show up before
the release.

-- 
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