On 01/03/2018 06:59 PM, Bystricky, Juro wrote:
A technicality: do not patch mnacros.in, set the macro directly from
package_rpm.bbclass.
Yes, I considered this (see the [patch 0/1]). I chose to patch macros.in in the
recipe rpm_4.14.0 instead because the new macro is introduced in RPM 4.14.0.
> I'm not sure I understand the necessity of this. What matters for
> reproducibility is that rpms install the same files; why is it important
> that the rpm file itself has exactly same build time and is otherwise
> identical bit by bit?
>
There is actually a demand for binary reproducible packa
On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 10:47 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On 01/03/2018 01:16 AM, Juro Bystricky wrote:
> >
> > Improve reproducibility by making sure that timestamps
> > in built rpms are not later than the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH as
> > found in the environment.
> > Timestamps as usual wh
On 01/03/2018 01:16 AM, Juro Bystricky wrote:
Improve reproducibility by making sure that timestamps
in built rpms are not later than the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH as
found in the environment.
Timestamps as usual when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
I'm not sure I understand the necessity of thi
Improve reproducibility by making sure that timestamps
in built rpms are not later than the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH as
found in the environment.
Timestamps as usual when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
[YOCTO #12425]
Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky
---
.../recipes-devtools/rpm/files/0001-support
