> > I just had another look at it, and I'm wondering, why the date is > included at all in the VERSION? Is there a good reason for it? > If not I would suggest to drop the date from the version. > Not at all, that was something introduced by the last maintainer, I've removed it :)
I updated the patch to use the new SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH variable and > noticed another issue related to file ordering (which we didn't detect > at the time this bug was submitted), which it also fixes. > Thanks, it looks ok here. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph] 2016-08-19 20:41 GMT-03:00 Reiner Herrmann <rei...@reiner-h.de>: > Hi Samuel, > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:26:05PM -0300, Samuel Henrique wrote: > > Thank you very much for digging into this and providing a patch, altough > > there's a little problem. > > > > The last part, used to get the date, returns an error "date: invalid > option > > -- '0'". > > I just had another look at it, and I'm wondering, why the date is > included at all in the VERSION? Is there a good reason for it? > If not I would suggest to drop the date from the version. > > > If you'd like to make another patch or just point out how to fix it, i > > would be glad to include it on the next revision (i'm currently doing a > new > > one and i'm willing to wait until this reproducibility problem is fixed > to > > upload). > > I updated the patch to use the new SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH variable and > noticed another issue related to file ordering (which we didn't detect > at the time this bug was submitted), which it also fixes. > > Kind regards, > Reiner >
