Felix,
> I would like to ask upstream to revert [1], but Ubuntu is a
> Debian-derivative. Should our binutils be built differently (or have
> they changed since [1] was authored)?
I read this question as a false dichotomy, or at we are focusing on
the wrong thing here. Let us take a few steps back -- here are my
assumptions and inferences, do let me know if any of them are wrong:
* We do not want these timestamps inside the .ar archive.
* It appears that wolfssl wishes to include them (infered from their
inclusion of "U")
* The "ignored" message is a warning, not an error. On my local
system it does not appear to cause a failure to create an ar
archive.
* Debian has configured binutils with --enable-deterministic-
archives since March 2015.
>From a narrow point of view, I do not mind what steps are taken so
that wolfssl does not embed this metadata, but I sincerely doubt
asking binutils to change a compile flag is the right way to go (or
will be effective).
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
