> The main objection to that model is that it requires modifying source timestamps, which isn't possible for builds on read-only source trees.
Why not set the source timestamps of the source trees to say 1 first? That's what is done with the Nix package manager. The Python interpreter is patched (mostly similar to the referred PR) and checks whether SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is set, and if so, sets the mtime to 1. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017, at 14:00, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 13:39:21 -0700 > > Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > I've written a short PEP about an import extension to allow pycs to be > > > more deterministic by optional replacing the timestamp with a hash of > > > the source file: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0552/ > > > > Why isn't https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/296 a good enough > > solution to this problem? It has a simple implementation, and requires > > neither maintaining two different pyc formats nor reading the entire > > source file to check whether the pyc file is up to date. > > The main objection to that model is that it requires modifying source > timestamps, which isn't possible for builds on read-only source trees. > This proposal also allows reproducible builds even if the files are > being modified in an edit-run-tests cycle. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ > freddyrietdijk%40fridh.nl >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com