| 1 |
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:55:46 +0900 |
| 2 |
Benda Xu <heroxbd@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Ha, indeed many packages hardwrites "date of build" alike. That is a |
| 5 |
> hard question to define reproducibility. I would rather ignore the |
| 6 |
> timestamps when comparing two binaries. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If a hard-timestamp is to be used, assuming you have portage via git, |
| 9 |
then it might be desirable to hard-timestamp based on either: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
a) the timestamp of the specific ebuilds last change |
| 12 |
b) the timestamp of the most-recent-of specific ebuild+eclass's last change |
| 13 |
c) the timestamp of the specific ebuilds initial commit |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm not sure which one is more practical though. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sounds like it would be an "experts" tool which would become far more practical |
| 18 |
for people who are using custom overlays to maintain their production systems, |
| 19 |
and those people can naturally make guarantees about their repos being in git, |
| 20 |
and they can decide which of those 3 options ( well, the ones we |
| 21 |
provide at least ) are most suited to what they're doing. |
Archives