Hello list,
I've looked the reproducible report for apt-cacher-ng [1].
It looks like it is caused by a linker flag: -Wl,--build-id=sha1
I did not see a category for this type of difference. There are 31
packages [2] that use the same linker flag.
How to fix this category of issue? As I understan
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 05:59:07PM +0200, Roland Clobus wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I've looked the reproducible report for apt-cacher-ng [1].
> It looks like it is caused by a linker flag: -Wl,--build-id=sha1
>
> I did not see a category for this type of difference. There are 31
> packages [2] that
My Bad,
I meant to link to:
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/build_id_variation_requiring_further_investigation_issue.html
Cheers!
-Santiago
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 04:52:08PM -0400, Santiago Torres Arias wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 05:59:07PM +0200, Roland
On 24/04/2021 17.59, Roland Clobus wrote:
> I've looked the reproducible report for apt-cacher-ng [1].
> It looks like it is caused by a linker flag: -Wl,--build-id=sha1
man ld says
> --build-id=style
> If style is omitted, "sha1" is used.
So this is just the default made explicit.
If you se
Hello again,
On 25/04/2021 02:26, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
> On 24/04/2021 17.59, Roland Clobus wrote:
>> I've looked the reproducible report for apt-cacher-ng.
>> It looks like it is caused by a linker flag: -Wl,--build-id=sha1
> If you see variations in build-id with sha1 mode, it means the
Hi Roland,
> Diffoscope could explicitly extract the rpath from the binary, to see
> whether it is of build-path-length and contains only '\0' bytes.
That's a great idea. I've filed this as:
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/diffoscope/-/issues/260
(Hopefully, salsa has pinged you
