Hi,

> > https://github.com/qt/qtbase/commit/38271e9298dcf48652a6e2e08414a940a97867fa  
> 
> This is a bit unfortunate.  It seems to me that the original intent of
> the patch was to support SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH as the commit message
> mentions that variable’s specification.  Pity that it is now a custom Qt
> variable.

I asked them and they said [1]:

>There was a policy to prefix variables with QT_ and I did not want to discuss more with the reviewer.
>But later, this was merged:
>https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/243636/4/src/tools/rcc/rcc.cpp,unified

[1] https://github.com/qt/qtbase/commit/38271e9298dcf48652a6e2e08414a940a97867fa#commitcomment-32085478

https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/243636/4/src/tools/rcc/rcc.cpp,unified contains the following patch:

...
228	228	         const QDateTime lastModified = m_fileInfo.lastModified();
	229	229	         quint64 lastmod = quint64(lastModified.isValid() ? lastModified.toMSecsSinceEpoch() : 0);
	230	230	         static const quint64 sourceDate = 1000 * qgetenv("QT_RCC_SOURCE_DATE_OVERRIDE").toULongLong(
);
	231	231	         if (sourceDate != 0)
	232	232	             lastmod = sourceDate;
		233	+        static const quint64 sourceDate2 = 1000 * qgetenv("SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH").toULongLong();
		234	+        if (sourceDate2 != 0)
		235	+            lastmod = sourceDate2;