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 
> packages.

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.

                Regards, Axel
 ,''`.  |  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

Reply via email to