From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 97660 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2016 04:52:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 97642 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2016 04:52:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:D*debian.org, Frysinger, frysinger X-HELO: smtp.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 04:52:00 -0000 From: Mike Frysinger To: Florian Weimer Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, 783210@bugs.debian.org, Aurelien Jarno , Ximin Luo Subject: Re: [PATCH] nscd_stat.c: make the build reproducible Message-ID: <20160801045215.GS6702@vapier.lan> Mail-Followup-To: Florian Weimer , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, 783210@bugs.debian.org, Aurelien Jarno , Ximin Luo References: <1457456791-17402-1-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net> <20160308233738.GP6588@vapier.lan> <20160309075403.GA2444@aurel32.net> <20160309223006.GA6588@vapier.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="t5NgoZwlhlUmGr82" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 --t5NgoZwlhlUmGr82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1204 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 ? >=20 > Ximin Luo and I discussed this and I wonder if it is possible to read=20 > out the libc.so.6 build ID if it is present. It should indirectly call=20 > all the layout dependencies and be reasonably easy to access because it=20 > is in an allocated section (and we might want to print it from an=20 > libc.so.6 invocation, too). >=20 > We still need the time-based approach if the build ID is not available,=20 > but I expect most distributions will have something like it. >=20 > The Debian bug is: >=20 > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D783210 >=20 > (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 --t5NgoZwlhlUmGr82 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-length: 819 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXntV/AAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBR3AQAM+G3d0D4BbLMdMlO3D7GRla xWm+FeQ7E6O5efPj1DYllQC8kcBenHVG2ImfG/kQAo2RuxcAadSNkHhDEOnCj54K U+GhJ+YHEb+FpYf/PI9ziUpOg+helrTECUpPhsLxsyArkJTg1s2cakgy27dRVguQ qNKQHDGsYkP082x87JBjdwX2RSdZkeSB3w220iElwDJHIDLS2IGGpTFJDZGxfjgj D9oQYRXZoDcHGIGyVEnTpYqStSrd//d+zHIm+ly6Hud5fMgIgu79IoTUmqWZBN1G PEVSmFPg19vBplBqt55WCKnyxTdRrKt86/tgFYVzXfn+VvAi4Lx6YgrCUfrXbsfJ Jz/nrQHtm4hadzIb56TJ018L4FvaOsGCFvzveWmg0bY4Q+vFAiRQ8Jqc4D60dBnP e/lwGfpw7G/D5GiRUdBygC/IGoRq/QTlzX0jWbWW+0EMRt0UJu1AzYltZhpRfa/c P3AWGaWgwq+bnGxnkdncFoMR2LivzNBoiMmGnrKbLAbI5HEJPcbFjx36TA2cPZIV J5M8IuZX3m0qDnHI8Veyu03dbszFme2bYw1u3vftZ5DtpjhyHelkhMtHSX1zTeDp FvY1KtXMIae/7glrvU7XV1pwtCp9dj8/HSklMM3Nmi1t8DPCI+oqUaTMb/kPqhUX EDIFv8nZakfof0JugN6z =UHfB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --t5NgoZwlhlUmGr82--