| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:59:54PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/22/05 Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:33:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Theoretical discussions about this are pointless IMO without |
| 6 |
> > > numbers/facts to back things up. |
| 7 |
> > I'd posit theroetical discussions about this are pointless without |
| 8 |
> > getting ebuild dev's to give a yay/nay on whether they want it or not; |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > not much for trying to force it down their throats if they don't want |
| 11 |
> > it (more work, essentially). |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That too. But providing them with some numbers will certainly have an |
| 14 |
> effect on their decision (especially if it shows that it doesn't really |
| 15 |
> affect them ;) |
| 16 |
Rather hard to back it up though, without specialized knowledge in |
| 17 |
(effectively) the whole tree- either we do it, or we ask nicely those |
| 18 |
who are supposed to have such knowledge :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I can rattle off a couple of env vars that screw things up, but how |
| 21 |
many of us are aware that an exported ARCH screws with kernel builds |
| 22 |
fex? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I'd punt it to them, and find out what they think (tiz the route I |
| 25 |
took when I brought this up last). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Explicit whitelisting is great for getting closer to deterministic |
| 28 |
builds, but it's a helluva overhead on a side note. |
| 29 |
~harring |
Archives