From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: fontforge: Build fonts bit-reproducibly. Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:05:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87io029ucx.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8737rgu96q.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]:53149) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alkiC-0001bS-Ja for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:05:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alki9-000248-E3 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:05:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22al=C3=ADrio?= eyng"'s message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:43:21 +0000") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?al=C3=ADrio?= eyng Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org al=C3=ADrio eyng skribis: >> Perhaps it would be best to honor the =E2=80=98SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=E2=80= =99 environment >> variable=C2=B9 instead of always using zero? > >> Fontforge users who expect a meaningful timestamp in there >> would still have it. And the patch could even be submitted upstream >> eventually. > actually there are four values, two are about the font source and two > are about the font executable > the font executable times are not readable in the gui and by the work > on debian, they are not readable in the api, so this change only > low-level things invisible to users There may be other programs out there that do display the timestamp, though. > this don't change dates on font information (because these come from > font source) > so i don't see any reason to fiddle with environment variables and > conversions to integer in c Well, I think this is debatable, and most likely in this form the change is not acceptable for upstream. I committed it anyway because I think it does more good than harm in our case. Thank you! Ludo=E2=80=99.