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