Am Sonntag, dem 27.12.2020 um 18:02 +0100 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > Before investing more time into it I wonder whether the use of > 'libfaketime' would be a valid solution for creating reproducible > builds.
My 2 cents: The widely accepted solution is SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH and if there is anything in LilyPond itself that inserts unreproducible data (into PostScript code), that should be fixed. Intercepting syscalls (or whatever the library does, I didn't check) doesn't sound like the right approach outside of testing reproducibility. The larger "issue" with this topic seems to be LilyPond's dependencies, in particular Ghostscript. A contribution to add support for above variable was closed as WONTFIX: https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696765 I think that's a pity, but nothing we can change as a "consumer" of library functions. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
