From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6CE31382C5 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 23:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0899E086F; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 23:41:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7488FE07D1 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 23:41:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from katipo2.lan (unknown [203.86.205.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kentnl) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8930335C88 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 23:41:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:40:44 +1300 From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Functional portage with namespace Message-ID: <20180317124044.1f34390c@katipo2.lan> In-Reply-To: <87sh96rzm5.fsf@gentoo.org> References: <87y3j2rs88.fsf_-_@gentoo.org> <87sh96rzm5.fsf@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/JcQcnl7s=PYMox.S6GOqfub"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 326a57ea-4045-4e76-85bb-c2bf055a9922 X-Archives-Hash: 946251c03f88164d6d5659c28ba14edb --Sig_/JcQcnl7s=PYMox.S6GOqfub Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:55:46 +0900 Benda Xu wrote: > Ha, indeed many packages hardwrites "date of build" alike. That is a > hard question to define reproducibility. I would rather ignore the > timestamps when comparing two binaries. If a hard-timestamp is to be used, assuming you have portage via git, then it might be desirable to hard-timestamp based on either: a) the timestamp of the specific ebuilds last change b) the timestamp of the most-recent-of specific ebuild+eclass's last change c) the timestamp of the specific ebuilds initial commit I'm not sure which one is more practical though. Sounds like it would be an "experts" tool which would become far more pract= ical for people who are using custom overlays to maintain their production syste= ms, and those people can naturally make guarantees about their repos being in g= it, and they can decide which of those 3 options ( well, the ones we provide at least ) are most suited to what they're doing. --Sig_/JcQcnl7s=PYMox.S6GOqfub Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEPZazbI/qrFT1o9rn6FQySxNmqCAFAlqsVgkACgkQ6FQySxNm qCCrDA/+OSV16klWrCgp2T0IosnRsULb71P/Om+yEDA7R+X0EXk7KwVZYps8fe/m 2qnBWfn2EEfApbPlHoS1mIEPpg9CZe1M4k0dbEuzE26qYHXP4K6bB9etAg0fx4YR ibddlGdgMDQoxzgcHuRbjYifqaoXvB21ZNHaEZDEISyE/nbAcpYunPfqegSyZs+d lJpwuLLsUTocTG/+yAcco1q8Qx1dHUlnF9vTmYtvUZpsdFsFN6t2s72fNGsdXyFI 8T7g63PEV6OAhOb8iJNb1I1VigSkCpnSzw8jTCGouumS8n3a0jG4dNQ1tNnNHrSc xy5xUnb717cyd2VMneqmujW4j3MNq9WbVvJrmUP4iQmN+MdLCefL/hrKKFE4AvF6 sW6o3Y4LORbbLdLkDpk+D/cTQshldjXayrSt1lXidQaWUb2BtZidZ9KFooQUdaIs jVql7SbdERZBrdhd75Ngf6nKYXVZoaifq3A0mPmSCO/yA5HcF6W251p8lBRZQYE9 MzCUFUFjYl/aE2yD5kMoXFgNoZHBRU2tlcfweaIl1Au0WsxYaSAMrVwj+fYocbR8 C4jAGOc8qQqia3QTGiuAafSjR4vL47gfv4+hmIsr4Zh+0mWWn/1lj1Zry/RsUl4R buASbtFUPjFNbCyAFWtZWZx5HmVNTYnKhQdkD5HfmkC7pONlrHM= =Itei -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/JcQcnl7s=PYMox.S6GOqfub--