On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 05:58:11PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > My take is that it is a bug to use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to populate the > timestamp inside a man page. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH was specifically designed for use cases like this: replace the build date with source_date_epoch based dates. (while obviously striving to drop dates and replace them with version numbers...) > This is just one of many symptoms that > will arise from trying to use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in an upstream context. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. > It seems generally better if upstream derive timestamps inside artifacts > from the source code for that artifact, or the last upstream release if > tracking the source code is problematic. Then these timestamps will be > stable during all future rebuilds of the same artifact. the (last modification date of the) source code of the artifact has been changed, i'm not sure why you expect stable artifacts built from changed source. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ The difference between 2C and 3C? Civilisation.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature