> Sure, it will take more time and effort, but this is something that > each upstream author should really do, not something we should do in > their name to hide a problem which is really an upstream problem.
In an ideal world, these would all disappear upstream. But the sheer scale of small and tedious fixes required -- not counting the energy required liasing and convincing upstreams who may not even care or exist anymore -- make this really untenable IMHO if we want to make progress as a distribution in the short to mid-term. I understand that this line between local and upstream patches is somewhat arbitrary, but these particular macros definitely are on the "longer-term" fix list for me. We would, of course, always push for upstreams not to use __DATE__ or __TIME__ and I don't think this is really condoning it. Actually that's a good point - the documentation for this feature in GCC should mention that you probably shouldn't be using this anyway. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `- _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproduciblefirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds