On 28 Jul 2016 15:15, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 03/09/2016 05:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > would it be so terrible to properly marshall this data ?
> 
> Ximin Luo and I discussed this and I wonder if it is possible to read 
> out the libc.so.6 build ID if it is present.  It should indirectly call 
> all the layout dependencies and be reasonably easy to access because it 
> is in an allocated section (and we might want to print it from an 
> libc.so.6 invocation, too).
> 
> We still need the time-based approach if the build ID is not available, 
> but I expect most distributions will have something like it.
> 
> The Debian bug is:
> 
>    https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=783210
> 
> (Also Cc:ed)

agreed that build-id should be an acceptable replacement for what the
code is doing today, but in order to pull that off, i guess you'd have
to have to do a configure test to see if build-id is active ?  if you
leave the logic to runtime, you'd still need to include the datetime
stamp in the object which would still make the build unreproducible.

this also doesn't really cover the quoted idea of marshalling the data
between client & server :).
-mike