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 Sm=F8rgrav <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? >=20 > Looks good to me, I'm not sure why this didn't happen long ago. Once upon a time, ranlib didn=92t 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=92m surprised this isn=92t 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>