[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Reproducible GNU!

From: John Darrington
Subject: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Reproducible GNU!
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:52:04 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Back on the reprodicibility subject again...

We have one other issue.  In src/libpspp/version.c there
is a string called stat_version which contains a timestamp.

This is used in only three places:

1. It finds its way into generated ODF files.
2. It is part of the dump one sees when a segfault occurs.
3. It is displayed at startup in the command line interface.

I think 1. should be removed anyway, because it is a privacy issue.
It could be used to identify the computer which generated a ODF file.

I don't think that the other two instances give us much benefit.

Any objections if we remove this string altogether?


On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 02:39:13PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
     On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 10:19:40PM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
     > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 04:47:59PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
     >      Reproducible builds are the technical means by which we can give 
users a
     >      chance to make sure they get the Corresponding Source, as the GPL 
     >      it, for a given binary.  If a package can be rebuilt by anyone, 
     >      a bit-for-bit identical result, then users can make sure they get
     >      genuine binaries.  For more background, see:
     >      The Debian non-reproducibility issue database, which is going to be
     >      shared with other distros and interested parties, contains many
     >      examples of these:
     >      I invite you GNU hackers to look into it and see whether there???s
     >      something you can do to improve your package. 
     > PSPP is listed here, due to the date stamps in the pspp.pot file.  
     > What do people think?  Should we remove the date stamp, replace it with 
a something else
     > (date of the most recent commit) or what?
     I've never used the date stamp and I'm not sure I knew there was one in
     there.  Is it useful?  Otherwise let's just remove it.

Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encryted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See or any PGP keyserver for public key.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]