> So everything may be fine. If that's the case, sorry for the noise. (Then it
> would be nice to add a comment explaining this, for future readers.)
No, I think you are right: If SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set, then this
is not going to work. I have tested the patch, but apparently only in
an envi
Fabian Wolff:
> [1] says that setting and exporting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in debian/rules
> is "a last resort to be avoided where possible", but I guess that if
> we export with ?=, it should be fine.
>
> [..]
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsProposal#Setting_the_variab
Ximin Luo:
> (sorry for repost, making sure the right people see this)
>
> Fabian Wolff:
>> -export DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-DNDEBUG
>> +export DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-DNDEBUG \
>> +-DBUILD_DATE="\"\\\"`date -u -d @$(SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH) +%Y-%m-%d`\\\"\""
>> \
>> +-DBUILD_TIME="\"\\\"`
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 07:01:49PM +0200, Ximin Luo wrote:
> export SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = $(shell dpkg-parsechangelog -SDate | date -f- +%s)
s/=/?=/ might be also nicer, IMHO.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
(sorry for repost, making sure the right people see this)
Fabian Wolff:
> -export DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-DNDEBUG
> +export DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-DNDEBUG \
> + -DBUILD_DATE="\"\\\"`date -u -d @$(SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH) +%Y-%m-%d`\\\"\""
> \
> + -DBUILD_TIME="\"\\\"`date -u -d @$(SOURCE
Source: codeblocks
Version: 13.12+dfsg-4
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hi!
While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed
that codeblocks could