[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 08:35:50PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Some tools use randomization to get out of worst case situations or
general optimization. For example when you look for an optimal
allocation of register usage you can do a search by picking a
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:13:32 +0200
Martin Uecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is not to replace hashes by bit-by-bit comparison, but to
be able to *independendly* reproduce binaries from source code in
a bit-identical way.
And what is going to happen when I used gcc-4.2.2007foo and you
On 23/09/07 at 23:32 +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
Patrick Winnertz wrote:
Am Dienstag, 18. September 2007 21:12:44 schrieb Julien Cristau:
Hmmhh, what do you do about programs etc that encode the build-time in
the binary? I mean they obviously will change between builds?
Martin Uecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patrick Winnertz wrote:
Am Dienstag, 18. September 2007 21:12:44 schrieb Julien Cristau:
Hmmhh, what do you do about programs etc that encode the build-time in
the binary? I mean they obviously will change between builds?
Hopefully they don't
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 08:35:50PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Some tools use randomization to get out of worst case situations or
general optimization. For example when you look for an optimal
allocation of register usage you can do a search by picking a random
register allocation
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 08:35:50PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Martin Uecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it would be really cool if the Debian policy required
that packages could be rebuild bit-identical from source.
At the moment, it is impossible to independly verify the
Hallo Goswin,
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some tools use randomization to get out of worst case situations or
general optimization. For example when you look for an optimal
allocation of register usage you can do a search by picking a random
register allocation and repeat
Patrick Winnertz wrote:
Am Dienstag, 18. September 2007 21:12:44 schrieb Julien Cristau:
Hmmhh, what do you do about programs etc that encode the build-time in
the binary? I mean they obviously will change between builds?
Hopefully they don't encode the build-time in the file list?
We
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:32:59 +0200
Martin Uecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Winnertz wrote:
Am Dienstag, 18. September 2007 21:12:44 schrieb Julien Cristau:
Hmmhh, what do you do about programs etc that encode the build-time in
the binary? I mean they obviously will change
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Martin Uecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I think it would be really cool if the Debian policy required
that packages could be rebuild bit-identical from source.
At the moment, it is impossible to independly verify the
integricity of binary
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:54:58AM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This has been covered before - certain upstream macros are among
many factors that ensure that this is unlikely. I, for one, use such
macros upstream to indicate the build time of the actual
Benjamin A'Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:54:58AM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This has been covered before - certain upstream macros are among
many factors that ensure that this is unlikely. I, for one, use
such
macros upstream
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 20:49:03 +0200, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 22:34 +0200, Patrick Winnertz wrote:
Hi,
[...]
Furthermore we detect some issues with different package content (compared
to the first build) after the second and third build. This bugs will have
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 22:34 +0200, Patrick Winnertz wrote:
Hi,
[...]
Furthermore we detect some issues with different package content (compared
to the first build) after the second and third build. This bugs will have
Severity: Serious.
Hmmhh, what do you do about programs etc that encode
Am Dienstag, 18. September 2007 21:12:44 schrieb Julien Cristau:
Hmmhh, what do you do about programs etc that encode the build-time in
the binary? I mean they obviously will change between builds?
Hopefully they don't encode the build-time in the file list?
We checked not for files which
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:34:52 +0200
Patrick Winnertz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as a QA effort the whole archive was rebuilt over the weekend to catch
build-failures, whether a package can be build three tmes in a row (unpack,
build, clean, build,clean, build).
What happens about
Hi,
as a QA effort the whole archive was rebuilt over the weekend to catch
build-failures, whether a package can be build three tmes in a row (unpack,
build, clean, build,clean, build).
This is the second effort to get rid of those issues. The first effort was
announced by Martin-Zobel Helas on
Am Montag, 10. September 2007 22:34:52 schrieb Patrick Winnertz:
Hi,
as a QA effort the whole archive was rebuilt over the weekend to catch
build-failures, whether a package can be build three tmes in a row
(unpack, build, clean, build,clean, build).
This is the second effort to get rid of
18 matches
Mail list logo
