On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 10:11:00AM +, Ximin Luo wrote:
> It is not strictly necessary, but it allows one to build reproducibly even
> when not using dpkg-buildpackage, e.g. when trying to re-run a specific part
> of the build via `debian/rules build` or something else. This is helpful to
>
Aurelien Jarno:
> [..]
>
> It would be nice to have an explanation why the changes from your patch
> are needed. See my comments below.
>
>
>> diff -Nru glibc-2.24/debian/rules glibc-2.24/debian/rules
>> --- glibc-2.24/debian/rules 2016-11-25 21:59:04.0 +
>> +++
On 2016-12-09 18:29, Ximin Luo wrote:
> - the upstream folks
>
> Aurelien Jarno:
> > On 2016-06-06 02:48, Ximin Luo wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:11:25 +0200 Aurelien Jarno
> >> wrote:
> >>> It means that the point 3 (usage of __DATE__ and __TIME__) is the only
> >>>
- the upstream folks
Aurelien Jarno:
> On 2016-06-06 02:48, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:11:25 +0200 Aurelien Jarno
>> wrote:
>>> It means that the point 3 (usage of __DATE__ and __TIME__) is the only
>>> one left to address in the version currently in
Ximin Luo:
> Aurelien Jarno:
>> On 2016-06-06 02:48, Ximin Luo wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:11:25 +0200 Aurelien Jarno
>>> wrote:
It means that the point 3 (usage of __DATE__ and __TIME__) is the only
one left to address in the version currently in
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
+CC Mike Frysinger
Aurelien Jarno:
> On 2016-06-06 02:48, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:11:25 +0200 Aurelien Jarno
>> wrote:
>>> It means that the point 3 (usage of __DATE__ and __TIME__) is the only
On 2016-06-06 02:48, Ximin Luo wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:11:25 +0200 Aurelien Jarno
> wrote:
> > It means that the point 3 (usage of __DATE__ and __TIME__) is the only
> > one left to address in the version currently in experimental.
> >
>
> Hi, GCC have now added
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:11:25 +0200 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> It means that the point 3 (usage of __DATE__ and __TIME__) is the only
> one left to address in the version currently in experimental.
>
Hi, GCC have now added support for SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH so we can use this
On 2015-08-23 20:13, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno:
> > I have just applied the part concerning point 1. For the 2 other points,
> > from what I have understood there are now patches for gcc to define
> > __DATE__ and __TIME__. So the question is should we still want to get
> > this
Aurelien Jarno:
I have just applied the part concerning point 1. For the 2 other points,
from what I have understood there are now patches for gcc to define
__DATE__ and __TIME__. So the question is should we still want to get
this changes in the glibc? In that case I would try to get these
On 2015-04-23 23:30, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
Source: glibc
Version: 2.19-18
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps fileordering umask username uname
Hi!
While working on the “reproducible builds” effort [1], we have noticed
Source: glibc
Version: 2.19-18
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps fileordering umask username uname
Hi!
While working on the “reproducible builds” effort [1], we have noticed
that glibc could not be built reproducibly.
The
Jérémy Bobbio:
3. nscd uses the date and time of the build as a version marker. So a
patch is added to allow the build date to be set externally. The date
of the latest debian/changelog entry will be used instead of the
current time for Debian.
Reiner Herrmann noticed that the patch
13 matches
Mail list logo