De : Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> À : Chris Lamb <[email protected]> Cc : [email protected] Date : 31 mars 2025 14:03:11 Objet : Bug#1101741: isync: please make the build reproducible
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 12:04:37PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: >> we (RB) have found that using reference filestamps like >> this to seed dates tends to be both unpredictable and opaque. >> > yes, when you don't really understand the build system and basically > hope for the best, then that's what you get. > >> Hence the suggestion to use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, >> > which would technically solve the wrong problem, as isync doesn't embed > build-related timestamps, unless manipulated unexpectedly. > > i don't want to rely on an external mechanism for something that should > be perfectly fixable internally. > >> which would not require a Debian-specific change (eg. your "date -r >> debian/changelog…"), and could therefore be upstreamed. >> > which is why i'm asking to evaluate using VERSION. > >> (Either way, the current call is missing the --utc/-u flag.) >> > i guess. > then i only need to remember to actually use an utc timestamp if i > actually release close to midnight ... This interaction is a bit tense for no good reason. Oswald, you might have your reasons for the current code, but I don't think anything Chris wrote warrants rude replies on his potential non-understanding of the build system. Maybe we can try to find a way forward that would suit you and avoid rebuilt antifacts to differ ? RB ils willingly rebuilding with a VM forward in time to make sure that builds are consistent within time. This is valuable to us. Bests, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue
