Ok, I think we should try the patch the bytecode complier way. WDYT? Rekado mentioned that setting the times would be an easier way to go, but breaks some tests... I guess they were also discussing options on irc. You are right, backporting does not seem to be a good option here.
Regarding message of ng0: Debian does not ship pyc files, they compile them at install time, so this reproducibility issue does not affect them. 2017-11-06 11:19 GMT+01:00 Hartmut Goebel <h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com>: > Am 06.11.2017 um 09:52 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: > > [15:37:41] <mb[m]1> At this stage we might as well wait for this to land > upstream: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0552/ > > So, it seems, that we are waiting for this pep to land upstream. > > Cool, thanks for the notification. > > Seems like my message did not go through: > > This change will not solve out problem! > > PEP 552 proposes a new file-format for .pyc file and a hash-based > mechanism for checking if the .pyc file is recent. This means, you can not > backport this changes to Python 3.6 or older. Even if you manage to > backport, this would seriously break all tools working on .pyc files. > > -- > Regards > Hartmut Goebel > > | Hartmut Goebel | h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com | > | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible | > >
