On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 10:19:40PM +0100, John Darrington wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 04:47:59PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote: > > > Reproducible builds are the technical means by which we can give users a > chance to make sure they get the Corresponding Source, as the GPL calls > it, for a given binary. If a package can be rebuilt by anyone, yielding > a bit-for-bit identical result, then users can make sure they get > genuine binaries. For more background, see: > > https://reproducible-builds.org/ > > The Debian non-reproducibility issue database, which is going to be > shared with other distros and interested parties, contains many > examples of these: > > https://reproducible.debian.net/index_issues.html > > I invite you GNU hackers to look into it and see whether there???s > something you can do to improve your package. > > > PSPP is listed here, due to the date stamps in the pspp.pot file. > > What do people think? Should we remove the date stamp, replace it with a > something else > (date of the most recent commit) or what?
I've never used the date stamp and I'm not sure I knew there was one in there. Is it useful? Otherwise let's just remove it. _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
