SDE spec update proposals

[Bernhard M. Wiedemann]

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: <http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/attachments/20261101/f65624b9/attachment.sig>