On Wednesday 04 August 2021 10:40:42 Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 08:36:27AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 06:44, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 07:59:21AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Tom, > > > > > > > > In message <20210802213100.GG9379@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think that if nothing changes the banner not changing is the right > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > Hm... is it? How about "external" changes like building with a > > > > different tool chain? Then at least the "version" command should > > > > produce a corresponding output, which means some parts _have_ to be > > > > recompiled, resulting in a new banner, too ? > > > > > > There's some misunderstanding about what this series does, and does not > > > do. First, with the series applied and you don't force > > > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, and you run make, and you re-run make, cmd/version.c > > > is rebuilt (but only that and not a bunch of other things anymore) and > > > the banner timestamp changes. Second, if you do set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH > > > to a fixed value (so you're trying to reproduce a build with a specific > > > timestamp) AND re-run make, nothing changes, as it should. Third, if > > > you change gcc, everything gets rebuilt including cmd/version.c and a > > > new banner. > > > > Yes that's my understanding and it seems fine. > > To be clear, I did a quick test with the series (git pw is very handy) > for the above.
Thanks for clarification! You are of course right.
