From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 19 12:41:47 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE601065674 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:41:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from www.sonnenberger.org (www.sonnenberger.org [92.79.50.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0318FC16 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from britannica.bec.de (www.sonnenberger.org [192.168.1.10]) by www.sonnenberger.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9061566663 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:22:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CC23C117B97; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:23:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:23:02 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100919122302.GA11190@britannica.bec.de> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <20100829201050.GA60715@stack.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: ar(1) format_decimal failure is fatal? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:41:47 -0000 On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:01:04AM -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > GNU binutils has recently (well, March 2009) added a -D > ("deterministic") argument to ar(1) which sets the timestamp, uid, > and gid to zero, and the mode to 644. That argument was added based on discussions on NetBSD about doing bit-identical release builds. It was made optional for the possible users of the data, not that we are really aware of anyone using it. The ar(1) support in make basically goes back to a time when replacing the content was a major speed up for incremental builds and it is pretty much useless nowadays. Similary the timestamp, it doesn't tell that much about the content either. I don't think the backend should do silent truncation, that would be very bad. It might be needed to have a flag for backends to allow it though. Joerg