On dimanche 10 juillet 2016 10:24:46 BST Reiner Herrmann wrote: > Hi Thomas,
Hi Reiner, Sorry for the delay. > > On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 10:34:10PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > > > While working on the "reproducible builds" effort [1], we have noticed > > > that mrd6 could not be built reproducibly. > > > It embeds the build date into the binary. > > > > > > The attached patch strips this to enable reproducible building. > > > > Thanks for the patch! Why remove the build date in src/mrd.cpp since it's > > already made reproducible by using unknown instead of the date? I suspect > > upstream will want to keep the date for normal build and I could make the > > change in the Makefile to be conditional on some variable, allowing Debian > > build to be reproducible while keeping the build unchanged for other > > usage. > > I also changed the build date to "unknown", or else the date would still > be part of the object file, even if it is no longer printed or used. > If upstream really insists on keeping the build date in (even though it > doesn't really provide any meaningful information), you could use the > __DATE__ / __TIME__ macros instead. My question was rather opposite. I understand the unknown, I don't understand why does it need to be removed from the object file. > gcc supports replacing them with reproducible dates (based on the > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable). > If you want, I can provide an updated patch for this. No need, I can do it myself. I'll propose a patch removing the date altogether and see how it is received. By the way, I've just submitted the following pull request upstream: https://github.com/hugosantos/mrd6/pull/30 Cheers, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
