From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: bug#22533: Python bytecode reproducibility
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 10:25:40 +0100
Message-ID: <87h8pudgbv.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20160202051544.GA11744@jasmine> <87bmqfu44s.fsf@fastmail.com>
	<87606c23bq.fsf@elephly.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45958)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1esmNh-0000k6-VV
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 04:26:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1esmNe-0005Yg-QX
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 04:26:05 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:37198)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1esmNe-0005Ya-MQ
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 04:26:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1esmNe-0008Dt-GG
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 04:26:02 -0500
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.22533.B22533.152024194331578@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <87606c23bq.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Sat,
	03 Mar 2018 23:37:29 +0100")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-Guix" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: 22533@debbugs.gnu.org

Hello!

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:

> Is it a bad idea to override the timestamps in the generated binaries?
> I think that we could avoid the recency check then, which was an
> obstacle to resetting the timestamps of the source files.

I think it=E2=80=99s good if we can fix Python itself to honor SOURCE_DATE_=
EPOCH
for its timestamps, but it=E2=80=99s also OK to patch timestamps in generat=
ed
binaries.

We do that already in gzip headers, with =E2=80=98reset-gzip-timestamp=E2=
=80=99.

Thanks for tackling this!

Ludo=E2=80=99.