Bug#783210: [PATCH] nscd_stat.c: make the build reproducible

2016-11-04 Thread Ximin Luo
Ximin Luo: > Mike Frysinger: >> On 28 Jul 2016 15:15, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> On 03/09/2016 05:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: would it be so terrible to properly marshall this data ? >>> >>> Ximin Luo and I discussed this and I wonder if it is possible to read >>> out the libc.so.6 build ID

Bug#783210: [PATCH] nscd_stat.c: make the build reproducible

2016-11-04 Thread Ximin Luo
Mike Frysinger: > On 28 Jul 2016 15:15, Florian Weimer wrote: >> On 03/09/2016 05:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> would it be so terrible to properly marshall this data ? >> >> Ximin Luo and I discussed this and I wonder if it is possible to read >> out the libc.so.6 build ID if it is present.

Bug#783210: [PATCH] nscd_stat.c: make the build reproducible

2016-07-31 Thread Mike Frysinger
On 28 Jul 2016 15:15, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 03/09/2016 05:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > would it be so terrible to properly marshall this data ? > > Ximin Luo and I discussed this and I wonder if it is possible to read > out the libc.so.6 build ID if it is present. It should indirectly

Bug#783210: [PATCH] nscd_stat.c: make the build reproducible

2016-07-29 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Florian Weimer skribis: > We still need the time-based approach if the build ID is not > available, but I expect most distributions will have something like > it. FWIW in Guix we solve it by filling the ‘compilation’ array with a substring of the installation prefix¹. Since

Bug#783210: [PATCH] nscd_stat.c: make the build reproducible

2016-07-28 Thread Florian Weimer
On 03/09/2016 05:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: would it be so terrible to properly marshall this data ? Ximin Luo and I discussed this and I wonder if it is possible to read out the libc.so.6 build ID if it is present. It should indirectly call all the layout dependencies and be reasonably