cc:ing the bug and thus leaving some more context…

On Montag, 21. Dezember 2015, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2015-12-21, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >> For now, relying on the fact that there are different actual kernels on
> >> various builds (4.x vs. 3.x) will hopefully be good enough to detect the
> >> issue that using "linux64 --uname-2.6" was trying to solve.
> > 
> > yeah. what I don't like about this is that it forces us to do that. I
> > liked the flexibility using --uname-2.6 gave us…
> The impression I got was the patch implementation was rejected upstream,
> but in theory a better patch could be written. Aurelian wasn't planning
> on working on it.

I've got the same impression.
> So if it's wanted for reproducible builds purposes, probably need to
> come up with a patch that would get accepted upstream...

Yup. Any takers? :-)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to