From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Danny Milosavljevic Subject: bug#27563: [PATCH v3 0/2] Make ghostscript reproducible. Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:25:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20170707152538.6fb9d21d@scratchpost.org> References: <20170703200844.3f6d9e19@scratchpost.org> <20170706103216.25939-1-dannym@scratchpost.org> <87tw2oa246.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57723) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dTTGo-0002Yp-NY for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:26:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dTTGk-0001au-ON for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:26:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:53191) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dTTGk-0001aj-L7 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:26:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dTTGk-0008RZ-3m for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:26:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87tw2oa246.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 27563@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Ludo, On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 14:00:09 +0200 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > Danny Milosavljevic skribis: >=20 > > Also, newer PDF files have an RDF header specifying some extra informat= ion > > in an XML-like format. For example there's an instance UUID (PDF/A spe= cifies > > that it's recommended to set this to an empty string), and a document U= UID. > > The latter again is time-based. =20 >=20 > If it=E2=80=99s time-based, then the solution may be to honor SOURCE_DATE= _EPOCH. Upstream says definitely not. The UUIDs are supposed to be unique and they= don't want anyone writing fixed UUIDs into documents (except for "" for th= e instance ID which they themselves do). I think there could be some enterprise search engine which associates a doc= ument with other resources using the document UUID - and if everyone went a= nd reused UUIDs it would be very confused. That's why I left it off.