Hi, 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? :-) cheers, Holger
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducibleemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds