Hi Vagrant, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@reproducible-builds.org> writes:
> On 2022-06-22, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@reproducible-builds.org> skribis: >> >>> On 2022-06-21, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> I'd much prefer challenging that stance than "endorsing" it in Guix :-). >>>> I think it'd be OK to reluctantly add it in as a stop-gap fix in Guix, >>>> but *only* after opening an issue to discuss it upstream and linking to >>>> that issue in Guix. >>> >>> I get it. I really do. It kind of grates at me every time I think about >>> this. >> >> :-) >> >> Another option would be to patch TeX Live, assuming the >> FORCE_SOURCE_DATE bit is well isolated in a single file. Would that >> seem reasonable/feasible/desirable to you, Vagrant? > > Only problem I see is indefinitely maintaining a patch to TeX Live that > upstream is unlikely to take ... but other than that, this sounds great! I wouldn't expect this simple substitution should be too difficult to maintain :-). > We'd also get a clearer idea of which packages are affected, rather than > setting it globally and rebuilding everything... I don't think it's of critical importance; what we care about here is having the software reproducible, not knowing exactly which esoteric environment variable enabled it. > I'll also try to dig up at least one of the threads where there was some > discussion with upstream... hopefully without getting too caught up in > that old rabbit hole. That'd be nice. Thanks! Maxim
