Re: Rant about Debian reproducibility environment
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> I try to make it short, but i want to say i am thankful for the
> spark that reproducible-build.org was for me. Even though i think
> it is a pity that $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is the sole indicator for
> reproducible environments, since now that programs can adapt..,
Packages should be reproducibly buildable even when S_D_E is not set.
It only exists as a workaround for packages that insist on embedding
timestamps, but this practice should not be encouraged.
> And, of course, if there is a different kernel version, or
> a different uname(1) output as such, then how could a dumb end
> producer[consumer, the author] like S-nail deal with that? We
> hardwire those attributes into the binary, like many other
> programs do, e.g., "mutt(1) -v" output.
> ...
> Honestly, i do not think that having "Debian" as the sole
> identifier in output of for example "s-nail -Xversion -Xx" just
> to satisfy a broken reproducibility test can be useful.
I'd suggest you obtain those values at runtime rather than at build
time, since you probably care more about the values at former than the
latter?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: