On 01/01/2025 7:03 pm, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> On Montag, 30. Dezember 2024 23:28:42 CET Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Montag, 30. Dezember 2024 22:38:24 CET Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 30/12/2024 9:00 pm, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
Use the solution described in [1] to replace th
On Montag, 30. Dezember 2024 23:28:42 CET Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> On Montag, 30. Dezember 2024 22:38:24 CET Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 30/12/2024 9:00 pm, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > > Use the solution described in [1] to replace the call to the 'date'
> > > command with a version that
On Montag, 30. Dezember 2024 22:38:24 CET Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 30/12/2024 9:00 pm, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > Use the solution described in [1] to replace the call to the 'date'
> > command with a version that uses SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if available. This
> > is needed for reproducible build
On 30/12/2024 9:00 pm, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> Use the solution described in [1] to replace the call to the 'date'
> command with a version that uses SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if available. This
> is needed for reproducible builds.
>
> The -d "@..." syntax was introduced in GNU date about 2005 (but
Use the solution described in [1] to replace the call to the 'date'
command with a version that uses SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if available. This
is needed for reproducible builds.
The -d "@..." syntax was introduced in GNU date about 2005 (but only
added to the docuemntation in 2011), so I assume a versi
