[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: final steps for reproduceable builds.
christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas) writes:
> In article <87ljredwx1.fsf%snark.cb.piermont.com@localhost>,
> Perry E. Metzger <perry%piermont.com@localhost> wrote:
>>"Perry E. Metzger" <perry%piermont.com@localhost> writes:
>>> I'll conditionalize the ar stuff on AR_DFLAG being set to yes and set
>>> that in build.sh in the manner of BUILDSEED, how's that?
>>New patch (untested -- I'm running a build now) -- comments?
> 1. this makes the assumption that our ar does ranlib, which is only true
> for gnu ar and will break other toolchains.
It appears that POSIX now more or less requires that ar do ranlib, and
requires that there be a -s flag that does what gnu ar's s flag
Our old "ar" was not POSIX, but if we ever re-write it to be modern,
it will need -s anyway, with the stated effects.
It is true that we may break very old toolchains that are not POSIX
but I don't see that as a problem. (We also would break toolchains
that don't supply "D" but one can always set AR_DFLAG to "no" -- the
other options are all POSIX.)
> 2. the yes or no variable names have MK in front of them typically, the
> AR_DFLAG one makes me think I should set it to D or nothing.
I know, but it doesn't really seem to fit into the naming scheme very
organically. We're not making or not making something based on the
flag. The name bothers me too -- both ways.
Perry E. Metzger perry%piermont.com@localhost
Main Index |
Thread Index |