Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:17:15 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: =?windows-1252?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ar and ranlib -D Message-ID: <925E4F91-1DCD-4002-9E23-5AD8FD582EF8@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2Ct-GJOy=x2ZwXQJnZdf0BbGm7VmTQcqc1U9Zxzkx7YQg@mail.gmail.com> References: <86eh15usv2.fsf@nine.des.no> <CAPyFy2Ct-GJOy=x2ZwXQJnZdf0BbGm7VmTQcqc1U9Zxzkx7YQg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 10, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 10 April 2014 11:06, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> wrote: >> The attached patch adds -D to ARFLAGS and introduces RANLIBFLAGS which >> defaults to -D. This ensures that all timestamps inside static >> libraries in the base system are hardcoded to 0 (aka the epoch), which >> is a huge step towards fully reproducible builds. Any objections? > > Looks good to me, I'm not sure why this didn't happen long ago. Once upon a time, ranlib didn’t like this too well and complained that the index was older than the file. Then it was made a special case. These days (and these days includes time since ~1995 or 2000), people always rebuild the entire .a anyway, so the value of having a timestamp in there is low, at best, so always doing this has become so boring that i’m surprised this isn’t the default behavior. Given that we always rebuild, though, this change is totally safe. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?925E4F91-1DCD-4002-9E23-5AD8FD582EF8>