Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past (#536)

2018-10-01 Thread Florian Festi
Merged #536 into master. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/536#event-1876519089___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past (#536)

2018-09-09 Thread ニール・ゴンパ
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/536#pullrequestreview-153583569___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past (#536)

2018-09-01 Thread Jeff Johnson
@bmwiedemann: you recently made neon "reproducible" and asked about upstream neon to send a patch. This link likely has all the essential pointers: https://github.com/aw/neon-unofficial-mirror Neon is an ice library even if "old" and DAVFS peculiar (but with a large following on M$ Windoze)

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past (#536)

2018-09-01 Thread Jeff Johnson
> On Sep 1, 2018, at 2:04 AM, Bernhard M. Wiedemann > wrote: > > I'm already producing bit-identical RPMs using the 4 macros documented in > https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Reproducible_Builds > So no changes on digests or signatures are needed atm. > > Inaccuracy of $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH does

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past (#536)

2018-09-01 Thread Bernhard M. Wiedemann
I'm already producing bit-identical RPMs using the 4 macros documented in https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Reproducible_Builds So no changes on digests or signatures are needed atm. Inaccuracy of $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH does not matter, as long as it is in the past. Some people always set it to 1

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past (#536)

2018-08-31 Thread Jeff Johnson
See also the thread on RPMTAG_IDENTITY here on rpm-maint@, which is another attempt at "reproducibility" (in the sense of reproducible "packaging") that is perhaps more soundly based because the BUILDTIME and file times are deliberately excluded rather than being reset to some known time. But

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past (#536)

2018-08-31 Thread Jeff Johnson
See issue #197 for how to represent time stamps with nano/micro second precision in header tags with the least amount of legacy incompatibility. There is an ISO standard for parsing high precision dates/times that rpm has never adopted, nor is the %changelog time stamp particularly accurate

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past (#536)

2018-08-31 Thread Jeff Johnson
The real problem with setting a reproducible build time from a %changelog entriy is lack of precision in the syntax of the permitted time. Other flaws will eventually be discovered imho. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past (#536)

2018-08-31 Thread Bernhard M. Wiedemann
Make sure SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is in the past, otherwise, builds before noon will not have normalized mtimes from %clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch This also helps other programs like tar --clamp-mtime Tested successfully on openSUSE. To reproduce, create a changelog entry with only a date ``` *