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
