> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 2:06 PM David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com> > wrote: > > Last cycle, I brought up the problem that it being part of the ELF > data destroys a lot of the value of the RPMCoW change[1] that is also > in development for this release. I'm disappointed that the Change > authors didn't care to resolve that issue for this iteration. > > [1]: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
Unless I'm mistaken, this is addressed indirectly by this paragraph, no? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects#Concerns_about_additional_changes_to_files > ELF files in Fedora already vary between different package versions. The > official version of the package is embedded in the .gnu_debuglink section. > And since that varies between rebuilds, .note.gnu.build-id link which is > calculated over all sections also varies. Thus every file has two sections > that vary, and we're adding a third. So package content is already changing if any part of the source package changes, if I understand correctly. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
