Re: [PATCH reproducible-notes] Remove non-sense wireguard note
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> The comment itself doesn't indicate to me (upstream) much at all, and
> a pretty ordinary attempt to figure out what it means didn't yield
> much....
Hi Jason,
At least in my experience, most of the time when there are
reproducible build problem, it's much more likely to be something for
the Debian maintainer to fix. For example, LTO builds[1] do not mix
as far as reproducible builds are concerned. And given some potential
code generation bugs with LTO which apparently the GCC maintainers
weren't interested in addressing[2], I ultimately decided to kill the
use of LTO when building e2fsprogs, since it's generally not CPU
bound. Improving e2fsck times by a second or two wasn't worth dealing
with user bug reports caused by compiler bugs/mischief.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/07/msg00606.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/07/msg00610.html
So it's stupid stuff like the choice of compilers and CFLAGS --- and
that's much more of a packaging issue than an upstream issue. It *is*
possible if you're doing something baroque with embedding timestamps
in generated files, but in general I suspect it's better to let the
Debian package maintainer figure out any issues, and let them send
patches back to you as the upstream maintainer if necessary.
Cheers,
- Ted
Reply to: