@JanZerebecki commented on this pull request.
> @@ -245,6 +245,10 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch 0
+# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
+# are not later than the build time of the package.
+%clamp_mtime_to_buildtime 0
I have not verified if that works, but if one can use lua in the %{?_buildtime}
macro to read and set environment variables and execute the date binary then we
could do the logic in macros.
And thus also use %{?_mtime} as returning the epoch to set. If it is something
like a false value that is not literal 0, the we would read it from disk like
the current default. Not sure why someone would want to clamp it, instead of
setting it, but if we need to we could have %{?_mtime_treatment} with 'set' or
'clamp'. I guess a callback to a macro for each file might be too slow? What do
you think?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#discussion_r1513101906
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944/review/1917484...@github.com>_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
