Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 10:15:31 PDT 2008

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Gilles Espinasse <g.esp at free.fr> wrote:
> Instead to gunzip all .gz files, would it not better to submit patches that add
> -n when gzip run so the files in use will really be the same?
> I should say I have made some patches like that but have not reported because it
> was against old version and not current version of packages.

I suppose you could.

> And how do you handle binary files that include a building timestamp string
> (like libc and perl)?
> Normally, those packages always differ because of the time string include.
> I have made hack patches removing timestamps on libc, perl and a few other
> packages.
> But I suspect my hack have no chance to be accepted upstream (maybe except the
> gzip -n changes).
> http://ipcop.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ipcop/ipcop/src/patches/glibc-2.3.3_notimestamp.patch?revision=
> http://ipcop.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ipcop/ipcop/src/patches/perl-5.8.5-notimestamp.patch?view=log&pathrev=IPCOP_v1_4_0

Right. I was doing the same when I was doing ICA regularly. Something like

sed -i -e 's/__TIME__/"now"/' -e 's/__DATE__/"today"/'

But then you start introducing changes to programs just for your own
profiling. Usually, you just look at the textual diff and see if the
difference is just due to a date/timestamp. In farce, Ken had some
functions that would skip these stamps, but I don't recall how he
implemented that.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list