This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 24, 2021. It is now read-only.
make build reproducible #149
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
we do this by removing the uname usage everywhere: it is not actually used at runtime at all. we keep the timestamp, because it is actually used in user_welcome() but allow it to be overriden. ideally, that timestamp would be completely removed, but I am not sure what to put in its place, or if it would break some mysterious RFC (or client!) if we remove that announcement.
anarcat
force-pushed
the
reproducible
branch
from
dcda2bb
to
a393a68
Compare
|
dcda2bb was a patch against 3.5.0 which will be shipped in debian. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
we do this by removing the uname usage everywhere: it is not actually
used at runtime at all.
we keep the timestamp, because it is actually used in user_welcome()
but allow it to be overriden.
ideally, that timestamp would be completely removed, but I am not sure
what to put in its place, or if it would break some mysterious RFC (or
client!) if we remove that announcement.
closes #148.