The idea of faking this and that (timestamps, builder hostname, ...
whatever) is weird.
It always leads to a question: why do we even have / use such
metadata, if we fake them anyway?
Only either ditching such values entirely or always honoring them does
make sense to me.
Or inventing new ones
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 10:14:56AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 8:46 AM Clemens Lang wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
> >
> > > In RPM world, I've even entertained an idea of having a subpackage for
> > > auditability not unlike how we have debuginfo,
On 24. 11. 22 19:28, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
On Thu Nov 10, 2022 at 15:23 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to
On Thu Nov 10, 2022 at 15:23 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
>
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:05:03PM +0100, Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > As a result, more RPM packages will be reproducible:
> >
> > Where will this reproducibility stop?
>
> Ideally, when it's achieved,
> and 100% of Fedora will be
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:05:11PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 11. 22 11:53, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > V Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:23:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > >
> > > The
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 12:42 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, at 5:53 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't be easier to admit that timesamps are nonsense and simply eradicate
> > all of them stamps from various data formats rather than trying to fake
> > them?
> > Simply
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, at 5:53 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> Wouldn't be easier to admit that timesamps are nonsense and simply eradicate
> all of them stamps from various data formats rather than trying to fake them?
> Simply changing rpmbuild to set timestamp to 0 for all contained files, or
>
V Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:05:11PM +0100, Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > > As a result, more RPM packages will be reproducible:
> >
> > Where will this reproducibility stop? An RPM package itself carry a build
> > time in its RPM header. Are we also going to fake this time in the name of
> >
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 8:46 AM Clemens Lang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
>
> > In RPM world, I've even entertained an idea of having a subpackage for
> > auditability not unlike how we have debuginfo, since rebuilding a package
> > reproducibly requires builddep pinning. But if
* Alexander Sosedkin:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:03 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Alexander Sosedkin:
>>
>> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>> >> An RPM package itself carry a build time in its RPM header.
>> >> Are we also going to fake this time in the name of
>> >>
Hi,
Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
In RPM world, I've even entertained an idea of having a subpackage for
auditability not unlike how we have debuginfo, since rebuilding a package
reproducibly requires builddep pinning. But if that's avoidable, I’d
rather just not mix artifacts with meta.
Debian
On 11. 11. 22 14:18, Barry wrote:
Change log has the date of a change but no time.
What time of day and timezone is used? 00:00:00 UTC?
Changelogs can have times as well.
When they don't, they are considered 12:00 (noon) UTC:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:03 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Alexander Sosedkin:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> >> An RPM package itself carry a build time in its RPM header.
> >> Are we also going to fake this time in the name of
> >> reproducibility?
> >
> > My
> On 10 Nov 2022, at 20:24, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
>
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal
On 11. 11. 22 11:53, Petr Pisar wrote:
V Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:23:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton napsal(a):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
== Summary ==
The `%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch` RPM macro will be set to `1`.
When an RPM package is built, mtimes
* Alexander Sosedkin:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>> An RPM package itself carry a build time in its RPM header.
>> Are we also going to fake this time in the name of
>> reproducibility?
>
> My opinion: yes, please do (%use_source_date_epoch_as_buildtime).
> And fake the
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> V Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:23:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
> >
> > == Summary ==
> >
> > The `%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch` RPM macro will be set to `1`.
> >
V Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:23:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
>
> == Summary ==
>
> The `%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch` RPM macro will be set to `1`.
> When an RPM package is built, mtimes of packaged files will be
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering
21 matches
Mail list logo
