From bernhardout at lsmod.de Sun Nov 1 06:39:12 2026 From: bernhardout at lsmod.de (Bernhard M. Wiedemann) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2026 07:39:12 +0100 Subject: SDE spec update proposals In-Reply-To: <57beedf5-26fe-4cb2-8c38-e254fa4cfee6@lsmod.de> References: <57beedf5-26fe-4cb2-8c38-e254fa4cfee6@lsmod.de> Message-ID: <1ef1f10a-f266-49f0-b250-50f912791854@lsmod.de> On 16/10/2026 15.41, Bernhard M. Wiedemann via rb-general wrote: > We now have 12 MRs total linked in #8. > And I just integrated all pending feedback. > > 4 MRs already got decent approval, so I checked them off in #8 > and these are likely to get merged as is in December. I already merged 3 wording changes with 5+ thumbsups and low impact to make the diff of MR 2 easier to see. https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/specs/source-date-epoch-spec/-/merge_requests/1 could also be merged with a few more thumbsups. It is still included in overlapping MR 2. MRs 5, 6 and 12 seem mostly good. It might be that the question there is "do we really need them?" MR 2 (rebased now) is large, and IMHO a decent improvement. Easiest to read in https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/specs/source-date-epoch-spec/-/blob/25a8c6ef984ed19c0963858936b22f543bcefa04/source-date-epoch-spec.xml#L58 Finally, MR 4 (usage as a flag) is where there is still room for discussion. (How) do we want to document what we (could) do with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH outside of timestamps in absence of another standardized variable that signals "I want deterministic output"? And (why) do we want to encourage or discourage that usage? Ciao Bernhard M. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 236 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: