On 10/06/15 12:41, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > On 10 June 2015 at 01:59, Ximin Luo <infini...@pwned.gg> wrote: >> Given the above, I think it would still be good to define SOURCE_DATE as I >> originally suggested: >> >> SOURCE_DATE = "$(date -d "$(dpkg-parsechangelog --count 1 -SDate)" >> --iso-8601=seconds)" # includes the TZ offset >> >> - if the language/tool already has/uses a ISO8601 parser in its standard >> library, this is as convenient as the previous SOURCE_DATE_UTC >> - if the language/tool doesn't have/use one, then SOURCE_DATE_UTC doesn't >> actually give us any benefits: >> - it's far easier to use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, if you want to play with the >> date programmatically >> - OTOH if you're just going to take substrings/regex-match it, this works >> just as easily for SOURCE_DATE vs SOURCE_DATE_UTC, and the former contains >> more information >> >> But I care less about this latter point; the main point of this email is to >> argue for SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH over SOURCE_DATE_UTC (iso8601 locked to "Z" >> timezone). > > I disagree that SOURCE_DATE_UTC provides no benefit over SOURCE_DATE: > at the very least, a program could choose to use it as an > uninterpreted string (similar to the proposed --date option at the > start of this bug, but from the environment rather than a flag). > SOURCE_DATE with an arbitrary offset not so much. >
The TZ offset is given statically in debian/changelog, and that can also be part of the "uninterpreted string". It's no less arbitrary than the rest of the date itself. > I'm happy to accept SOURCE_DATE, SOURCE_DATE_UTC, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH or > even SOURCE_DATE_EXTRACTED_FROM_DEBIAN_CHANGELOG_WITH_NO_INTERPRETATION > however. Pick one. > OK, then let's go with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. X -- GPG: 4096R/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
