On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 8/12/2014 5:48 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >> This makes the report reproducible. > > > I think the report should include a date. I do not see any advantage having > reproducible reports. The report captures the specific instance of the > build. > Would it make sense to re-build on a different date and want to compare the results to see there is no difference? Maybe a flag can be turned on/off for "reproducible" builds. Or is it the user's responsibility to strip out such non-reproducible bits if they want such a feature?
-Gedare > The purpose behind the report is to have an output from the process that can > feed into a QA audit type process. Part of the purpose of the RTEMS tools is > to create an RTEMS Ecosystem and this is about pushing down into RTEMS > report generation for these parts of process so users can feed them up into > their configuration management system. > > Hmm looking I cannot see a text version of the report being installed. That > is an oversight on my part. > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
