[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility |
Date: |
Mon, 05 Mar 2018 10:25:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hello!
Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> skribis:
> Is it a bad idea to override the timestamps in the generated binaries?
> I think that we could avoid the recency check then, which was an
> obstacle to resetting the timestamps of the source files.
I think it’s good if we can fix Python itself to honor SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
for its timestamps, but it’s also OK to patch timestamps in generated
binaries.
We do that already in gzip headers, with ‘reset-gzip-timestamp’.
Thanks for tackling this!
Ludo’.
- bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility, (continued)
- bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility, Ricardo Wurmus, 2018/03/05
- bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility, Ricardo Wurmus, 2018/03/05
- bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility, Marius Bakke, 2018/03/05
- bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility, Ricardo Wurmus, 2018/03/06
- bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility, Ricardo Wurmus, 2018/03/06
- bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility, Gábor Boskovits, 2018/03/06
- bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility, Gábor Boskovits, 2018/03/08
bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility,
Ludovic Courtès <=