Hi Reiner,
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Reiner Herrmann wrote:
You are right, the mtime of the file is used for the manpage timestamp.
But there is still a patch modifying the manpage:
mcedit_full_path.patch. When this patch is upstreamed, the
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch is not needed, though it would
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:21:49PM +0200, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016, Reiner Herrmann wrote:
>
> >While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed
> >that mc could not be built reproducibly. It embeds the current date into
> >the mcedit manpage during
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016, Reiner Herrmann wrote:
While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed
that mc could not be built reproducibly. It embeds the current date into
the mcedit manpage during build.
Ok, I think that I can now see what went wrong here: Debian used to
Hi Reiner,
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016, Reiner Herrmann wrote:
Yes, it is standardized [1] and already supported by a lot of build
tools [2], e.g. even by gcc. Other distributions and FreeBSD are
currently also in the process of adopting it.
Thank you for the clarifications! Maybe you could
Hi Reiner,
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016, Reiner Herrmann wrote:
While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed
that mc could not be built reproducibly. It embeds the current date into
the mcedit manpage during build.
That's my fault: the dates were originally entered by hand,
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:00:50PM +0200, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:
> >The attached patch uses SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH as a deterministic timestamp
> >instead.
>
> I wouldn't mind upstreaming this patch as long as SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is at
> least halfway standardized. Could you please tell me whether this
6 matches
Mail list logo
