Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:10:48 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: marino@freebsd.org, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r415078 - in head: . Mk Message-ID: <1463850648.1180.374.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20160521163832.GB97771@FreeBSD.org> References: <20160513182837.GF49383@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20160513201919.GA48945@FreeBSD.org> <CAPyFy2A9L1cCikOrgBAWUo0GTCLJ4EgzqukhobaJp%2BZqv7_SpQ@mail.gmail.com> <20160519122306.GA24015@FreeBSD.org> <20160521112728.GA624@FreeBSD.org> <364d3d9f-63ff-18c8-c730-a11c57dc0673@marino.st> <20160521114358.GC624@FreeBSD.org> <20160521122522.GJ21899@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <70938d6b-0fab-91b9-28b0-9dd05302a503@marino.st> <20160521124148.GK21899@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20160521163832.GB97771@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2016-05-21 at 16:38 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 02:41:48PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > All needs it, I have provided links in previous mails that explain > > reproducible builds and in particular the issue with timestamps[.] > > I don't think we're denying the fact that you need a suitable source > of > timestamps to work with. > > > A quick hint: this timestamp will be used as a timestamp for file > > inside > > each packages, (but not only) in order to be sure that the tar > > files > > itself is the has the same checksum if packaging the same files > > rebuilt > > laters. > > > > The timestamps are more tricky that they looks like because of how > > things > > like Makefile.pl, bytecodes for python, emacs etc works and are > > regenerated. > > I presume that answers John's question (which ports need it -- all > do). > > > I really don't care about the location of the information, I care > > about > > the fact that it is updated often enough so it does not break > > building > > and not too often so we can benefit from reproducible build. > > And I somewhat do care about the location. Putting it in distinfo is > not > just ugly, but wrong. If you manage to convince me that it really > cannot > be reliably obtained from either VCS or properly exported tree then > please > find a better place for it. > > ./danfe > This is just crazy-talk. In what way is an update timestamp NOT "info" about the distribution files? The file isn't named distchecksum or dist_sha256_only, or dist_only_what_alexey_likes_to_see. It is metadata, it has always been metadata, and now that there is new metadata necessary to achieve new functionality, the one and only place that makes sense for it to be is the existing distinfo metadata file. Saying that the info can be obtained from version control is more crazy -talk. Do we add support for every version control system that ever existed to support every user of ports other there? The people most interested in the new reproducible build functionality are the ones most likely to be using some local version control system which is not svn or git (we use both cvs and mercurial for various generations of our ports trees at $work). Instead of demanding that the people actually doing useful new work justify this tiny insignificant detail of their implementation because it offends your view of how things should be, perhaps you could provide some argument about what harm the new value does. Something based on actual facts, not just "I think it's ugly" or "I think it's wrong." -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1463850648.1180.374.camel>