Sune Vuorela: > On Sunday, February 10, 2019 8:00:00 PM CET Ximin Luo wrote: >> i.e. QT tests shouldn't use __FILE__, they should use something else. > > What should they use? A custom macro that the build system passes into > instead? > > That's just silly. So what are your actual suggestion to find the source tree > from executables in the build tree? > > Note that this is all about tests, so nothing shipped to actual users, so > reproducibility should be a non-issue here. > >> Patching this one macro is easier than patching several hundred packages >> that use __FILE__ directly for more innocent (less assumptive) purposes >> that are unaffected by -ffile-prefix-mpa. > > What do you consider acceptable usecases for __FILE__ ? >
Acceptable usecases are those that make fewest assumptions about the behaviour of __FILE__, which has never been guaranteed to do what the QT test macro assumes it does. I think it's extremely short-sighted (and selfish, actually) to feel entitled that non-QT projects should patch away their uses of __FILE__ *that make less assumptions about what __FILE__ does* but QT should not do this minimal amount of work to change one test macro. Lots of other test runners do perfectly well without __FILE__, QT tests are not special. X -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
