Hello Vagrant,
Am 19.07.2015 um 15:14 schrieb Vagrant Cascadian:
On 2015-07-19, Holger Levsen wrote:
All this said, if you send me patches, I will probably deploy them as I'm
very curious and more reproducibility efforts are good :-) We can can
always decide to remove or move them later.
I wish to make all contributions upstream. What would really help at
first would be to have all targets built regularly to see where work is
needed. This is where I think the Debian infrastructure could help, in a
similar way as what was started for Coreboot.
FWIW, I was planning on including this patch to u-boot in the next
upload to Debian:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/u-boot.git/tree/debian/patches/use-date-from-debian-changelog.patch?h=experimental-2015.07
I *think* that actually makes u-boot build reproducibly with Debian's
reproducible builds toolchain when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is set, but I
haven't tested it fully. I might have missed some other sources of
non-determinism...
Hoping to get some armhf buildd nodes up an running soonish... although
it should also be buildable with the cross-toolchains, if the
reproducible buildds coulld be made to support that.
Did you see my v2 patch [1] for u-boot?
It also builds now u-boot images created with mkimage reproducible ...
If I interpret your patch from above correct, you add with
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH a specific fix timestamp?
I think, this could be included to my approach too ...
If SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is defined, use it, fi not defined
define U_BOOT_DATE, U_BOOT_TIME and U_BOOT_TZ
with my default settings from [1] ...
All only if CONFIG_SYS_EXACT_BINARY is set in the u-boot
config of course ...
What do you think?
bye,
Heiko
[1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/487530/
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
