Chris Lamb: > Hi Holger et. al., > >>> This idea is similar to hardening-wrapper. That is now deprecated, but was >>> useful as a stepping-stone to more "proper" fixes. Likewise, this shouldn't >>> be thought of as "the proper fix", [...] >> >> when reading this at first, I didnt like the idea of working it around as you >> described > > Same.. :( > >> […] but then you have a valid point with hardening-wrapper > > Hm, I'm not entirely convinced. Whilst h-w *did* exist, it not only stuck > around far too long, I fear that a parallel reproducibile-wrapper will stick > around even longer and be even harder still to eventually deprecate as it > will be used a lot more due to Policy pushes and/or general buzz around > getting one's packages reproducible. > > It's also — and this should go without saying — unspeakably ugly! >
Obviously, my ideal clean solution was the original GCC patch using environment variables. Do you have some alternative suggestions to what I proposed? I don't want to have to patch 1800 packages with specific logic, or rewrite existing working build scripts simply to get reproducibility. X -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds