Nate Bargmann skribis:
> * On 2014 27 Sep 09:35 -0500, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> It should be noted that it’s actually Jan. 1st 1970 UTC. :-)
>
> D'oh! Indeed. As I am six hours behind (America/Chicago) the system
> rightly interprets the beginning of the epoch UTC as the prior day
> here. Al
* On 2014 27 Sep 09:35 -0500, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> It should be noted that it’s actually Jan. 1st 1970 UTC. :-)
D'oh! Indeed. As I am six hours behind (America/Chicago) the system
rightly interprets the beginning of the epoch UTC as the prior day
here. All these years and that never dawned
Nate Bargmann skribis:
> As much as I'd like to be six years old again in some aspects, I'm
> curious why most of the dates under /gnu/store and under ~/.guix-profile
> are set to Dec 31 1969?
It should be noted that it’s actually Jan. 1st 1970 UTC. :-)
Ludo’.
* On 2014 27 Sep 08:32 -0500, David Thompson wrote:
>
> This is by design in order to have more deterministic builds. If two
> files have the same contents but have different timestamps, then they
> will have different hashes.
Thanks, David.
That helps me understand the system a bit better.
-
Nate Bargmann writes:
> As much as I'd like to be six years old again in some aspects, I'm
> curious why most of the dates under /gnu/store and under ~/.guix-profile
> are set to Dec 31 1969? Yes, I know that this is just before the
> beginning of the Unix epoch, which must figure into the equat
As much as I'd like to be six years old again in some aspects, I'm
curious why most of the dates under /gnu/store and under ~/.guix-profile
are set to Dec 31 1969? Yes, I know that this is just before the
beginning of the Unix epoch, which must figure into the equation in some
way.
If this is in
