[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH for timestamp if available
From:       Paul Spooren <mail () aparcar ! org>
Date:       2021-05-14 12:18:15
Message-ID: c78e9dbe-ce73-17e5-cb09-f52153cd0165 () aparcar ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On 5/14/21 1:42 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> is there a public thread where this is being discussed? Or alternativly,
> can I or you re-post this to the rb-general list?

Please see their mail archive:

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2021-May/thread.html

>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 11:39:05PM +0200, Paul Spooren wrote:
>> The SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is an effort of the Reproducible Builds
>> organization to make timestamps/build dates in compiled tools
>> deterministic over several repetitive builds.
>>
>> Busybox shows by default the build date timestamp which changes whenever
>> compiled. To have a reasonable accurate build date while staying
>> reproducible, it's possible to use the *date of last source
>> modification* rather than the current time and date.
>>
>> Further information on SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH are available online [1].
>>
>> This patch modifies `confdata.c` so that the content of the
>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH env variable is used as timestamp.
>   
> I wonder why busybox is reproducible on Debian (well, except on i386..),
> see https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/busybox.html
>
> The Debian package sources don't contain the string SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH...

I haven't checked but I'm guessing they do like Archlinux and OpenWrt, 
simply disabling the timestamp via KCONFIG_NOTIMESTAMP=1.

Best,
Paul

_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]