* Alexander Sosedkin: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:03 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> * Alexander Sosedkin: >> >> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> An RPM package itself carry a build time in its RPM header. >> >> Are we also going to fake this time in the name of >> >> reproducibility? >> > >> > My opinion: yes, please do (%use_source_date_epoch_as_buildtime). >> > And fake the builder hostname (%_buildhost). >> > And enable back --enable-deterministic-archives in binutils: >> > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195883). >> > And do whatever else is necessary to stop shipping binary packages >> > that users can't reproduce bit-to-bit. >> >> The downside of doing this is that it's no longer possible to check >> whether a build happened against a buildroot with a particular fix in >> it. The time-based check was never 100% reliable, but it could be used >> as a good indicator in the past. > > No, no, false dichotomy alert. > This is not a case where reproducibility rules out auditability. Sure, not in principle. I merely wanted to point out that this takes a way a bit of information that was useful to some of us before. Thanks, Florian _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
