On Tue 2016-09-06 16:02:00 -0400, Ximin Luo wrote: > Thanks, I did see this a while ago and forgot about it. However it > does differ from the current proposal in an important way. > > Current proposal (2): GCC should, if SOURCE_ROOT is set and > debug-prefix-map is not given, *automatically* use this > variable. There is no opportunity for the user to tell GCC to look at > a different variable. > > OTOH your patch above has GCC read a user-supplied variable. I think > we want to avoid this, for the same reason that we pushed quite > heavily for upstreams to support SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH and not their own > custom command line option. It would also fix packages using gcc but > not dpkg-buildflags (and for other distros, etc).
ah, right. I like your constrained version better; hard-coding sensible practices helps keep everyone on the right track. It's also much simpler to argue for this approach if we can point to how SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is already supported. bikeshedding: is SOURCE_ROOT the right name? I worry a bit about the different possible meanings of "ROOT" on unix systems. maybe SOURCE_BASE_DIR or SOURCE_DIR_ROOT is more descriptive of what we are describing? No strong preferences on my side. > But for sure we can start from the code that you already wrote. :) yep, that's what i was proposing; i certainly don't mean to suggest that my original patch is the thing that should be adopted. --dkg _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds