Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Montag, 19. Oktober 2015, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I don't think that
> > faketime is a lot special about this. Most of the time a simple
> > "touch" and options like tar's --owner and --group are enough to
> > achieve reproducibility. Personally, I have not seen faketime to be
> > used a lot, but this is just a personal feeling.
> we don't use faketime *at all*, as it has been been proven to be problematic
> breaking some / many builds.
As could be seen with mp4h. ;-)
> so: we never build *with* faketime, we just build faketime as we build all
The reason why I talked about faketime is this:
So far it seemed the only way I get most of the issues with mp4h
fixed. Now that I've added some SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH support, I can maybe
get rid of faketime and still get many of the issues fixed. Then
again, in the upload from yesterday I didn't seem to catch all
timestamps inside the documentation fixed.
,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Reproducible-builds mailing list