On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 02:39:13PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
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.Ok. I have remove all the POT-Creation timestamps. If it causes problems or if the translators or anyone else complain, then it's not a big deal to put them back again. J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encryted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
