>>> On 04.02.15 at 09:42, wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> http://dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP0134_2.8.0.pdf
>> (in particular section 7.1 and table 5)
>
> "The date string, if supplied, is in either mm/dd/yy or mm/dd/ format."
>
> To me it sounds li
On Wed, Feb 04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> http://dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP0134_2.8.0.pdf
> (in particular section 7.1 and table 5)
"The date string, if supplied, is in either mm/dd/yy or mm/dd/ format."
To me it sounds like an optional thing. An empty string is as
infor
>>> On 03.02.15 at 19:41, wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
>> A release date is part of the SMBIOS spec, and the change below results
>> in a malformed smbios table (stale p->release_date_str = 3; pointer)
>
> Good point. Thanks for review. Do you have a pointer to that spec?
htt
On Tue, Feb 03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> A release date is part of the SMBIOS spec, and the change below results
> in a malformed smbios table (stale p->release_date_str = 3; pointer)
Good point. Thanks for review. Do you have a pointer to that spec?
> A better approach would be to derive the date
>>> On 03.02.15 at 17:23, wrote:
> On 03/02/15 16:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.02.15 at 17:02, wrote:
>>> On 03/02/15 15:54, Olaf Hering wrote:
Including a timestamp into the binary makes it impossible to get
reproducible binaries. Remove the timestamp because it carries no
v
On 03/02/15 16:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.02.15 at 17:02, wrote:
>> On 03/02/15 15:54, Olaf Hering wrote:
>>> Including a timestamp into the binary makes it impossible to get
>>> reproducible binaries. Remove the timestamp because it carries no
>>> valuable info.
>> I agree with the sentime
>>> On 03.02.15 at 17:02, wrote:
> On 03/02/15 15:54, Olaf Hering wrote:
>> Including a timestamp into the binary makes it impossible to get
>> reproducible binaries. Remove the timestamp because it carries no
>> valuable info.
>
> I agree with the sentiment, but this is not how to do it.
>
> A
On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 16:54 +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
> Including a timestamp into the binary makes it impossible to get
> reproducible binaries. Remove the timestamp because it carries no
> valuable info.
AFAICT this is changing the contents of a firmware table which is
exposed to the guest, so t
On 03/02/15 15:54, Olaf Hering wrote:
> Including a timestamp into the binary makes it impossible to get
> reproducible binaries. Remove the timestamp because it carries no
> valuable info.
>
> Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering
> Cc: Keir Fraser
> Cc: Jan Beulich
> Cc: Andrew Cooper
> Cc: Ian Jackson
Including a timestamp into the binary makes it impossible to get
reproducible binaries. Remove the timestamp because it carries no
valuable info.
Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering
Cc: Keir Fraser
Cc: Jan Beulich
Cc: Andrew Cooper
Cc: Ian Jackson
Cc: Stefano Stabellini
Cc: Ian Campbell
Cc: Wei Liu
10 matches
Mail list logo
