Hello, Am Freitag, 20. März 2020, 12:39:33 CET schrieb Michael Olbrich: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 03:44:49PM +0100, Alexander Dahl wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Dahl <[email protected]> > > Maybe use the same value as os-release?
Would make sense, I thought that's what $(shell date --utc --date @$(SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH) '+%FT%T%z') would yield, given SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is always set? I used that line in both patches. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here, or what you mean with that question above. Greets Alex > > --- > > > > rules/rootfs.make | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/rules/rootfs.make b/rules/rootfs.make > > index b33805d77..6a89bfcc4 100644 > > --- a/rules/rootfs.make > > +++ b/rules/rootfs.make > > @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ ifdef PTXCONF_ROOTFS_ISSUE > > > > @$(call install_replace, rootfs, /etc/issue, \ > > > > @EXTRAVERSION@, $(PTXDIST_VERSION_SCM)) > > > > @$(call install_replace, rootfs, /etc/issue, \ > > > > - @DATE@, $(shell date +%FT%T%z)) > > + @DATE@, $(shell date --utc --date @$(SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH) > > '+%FT%T%z')) > > > > @$(call install_replace, rootfs, /etc/issue, \ > > > > @VENDOR@, $(PTXCONF_PROJECT_VENDOR)) > > > > @$(call install_replace, rootfs, /etc/issue, \ _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list [email protected]
