I expected the same, but our CI test for reproducibility passed without it. I
was surprised. Hopefully I'm about to learn something.
Scott K
On January 30, 2024 4:00:59 PM UTC, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
wrote:
>On 30.01.24 10:12, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote:
>> It
On 30.01.24 10:12, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote:
It looks to me like it does fix it.
Isn't/was't the sort important? (I'd expect it to be)
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:14:09 AM EST Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> In case anyone is
It looks to me like it does fix it.
Thanks,
Scott K
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:14:09 AM EST Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> > In case anyone is unfamiliar, you can read about reproducible builds here:
> > reproducible-builds.org
> >
> > It
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> In case anyone is unfamiliar, you can read about reproducible builds here:
> reproducible-builds.org
>
> It looks like Postfix as shipped is very close to being reproducible. We got
> positive results on reproducibility with the patch below added. Is this
