From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF81C433F5 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 21:51:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E377960F56 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 21:51:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org E377960F56 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=stwcx.xyz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Hfj7g2RHSz30Pj for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 08:51:27 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=stwcx.xyz header.i=@stwcx.xyz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=bWF23xRV; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=YDTH+Jrj; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=stwcx.xyz (client-ip=66.111.4.29; helo=out5-smtp.messagingengine.com; envelope-from=patrick@stwcx.xyz; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=stwcx.xyz header.i=@stwcx.xyz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=bWF23xRV; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=YDTH+Jrj; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Hfj6s14KNz30Pj for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 08:50:45 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8B05C00B3; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:50:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stwcx.xyz; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm3; bh=1sAbElsdrkgQYfIA5Z15uSjuP/k DHIqG2KhuvfHbPDU=; b=bWF23xRVfIrJ9U+E/Mm4uA7qE/3AX8K1VXHc2FxsP81 neF9pwXLtYEGbgPEzb0L+uG1FsYiF9xbaijVg8n8VEemx2j5U3iMQIINXUTfAb1S qqnIJRNKCA/FX35eKBScWGtSWlSDOcIu+Kcn9kve42s1nof9SVYP18iw/5YjiAd4 YBhLGrFHS23dLoJjVtsxle0TqPwBpOZlbuCjUYmdUVcDjo7kJFoAV8h9taoMqtel iRn3/wOJjbGG2aqG6E3ScbHj/Sg3KD/bFZpfoD7P3x2JqOp6m2ASgrNq+2hT5Y+n 2kG1exHyL0dfcFwqRIfX3BLDaFwClJKu/OifZqSYxQg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=1sAbEl sdrkgQYfIA5Z15uSjuP/kDHIqG2KhuvfHbPDU=; b=YDTH+Jrj+5Fhz9Tb0un3iD Akz0Eg3eqIGx4DOAH6Lt5H1vl19am1AMCDPrh0ClKdV9qYZaeGhZ3Ly0n5smTJ9p H/dUZ0kmnug9yPpDg9g9sgTtcSrOcjAhWZkOnx6NIoKzfiYRV+rA2+TfPzTTatg1 NRmPAikN+pDMvBGF5I7C6zJU18GkOcAAse2LCWc3qM3LAL2hoApSAPUQBN8cO256 UKQfGTXP8oLPBbAo1XX+/vIvdTy6BkjwHnO1G+jD4Fp3U1mkPQAn8sRLK0f1UM30 9Q8vCTxJ/xuDBA1FKFNFt30MMY9cviVsK+8whAR2NE8cnzxzsfVqnIl3wcfwIlLg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvdegtddgudeiudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enfghrlhcuvffnffculdefhedmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredt tddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrghtrhhitghkucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehprghtrhhitghkse hsthiftgigrdighiiiqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeduudefleeuhefhleehjeejgfeu jeehhfdtledufeehkeduudevkeeiuddugfegkeenucffohhmrghinhepohhpvghnsghmtg dqphhrohhjvggtthdrgiihiienucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhep mhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehprghtrhhitghksehsthiftgigrdighiii X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:50:40 -0500 From: Patrick Williams To: Adriana Kobylak Subject: Re: [External] Changing the os-release BUILD_ID back to its default value of DATETIME Message-ID: References: <80FD1EF5-EA89-4FE1-8075-B07E9122FF8E@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Uh+HHm87xErqZtex" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <80FD1EF5-EA89-4FE1-8075-B07E9122FF8E@linux.ibm.com> X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: edtanous@google.com, =?utf-8?B?6YOB6Zu3?= , OpenBMC Maillist , William Kennington Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" --Uh+HHm87xErqZtex Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:17:06PM -0500, Adriana Kobylak wrote: > Thanks everybody. Changes up for review: >=20 > https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/48204 > https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/48205 >=20 >=20 > > On Oct 12, 2021, at 4:45 AM, William Kennington wrote: > >=20 > > Personally I would rather have deterministic builds and don't like > > arbitrary build timestamp injection into images. But we can announce > > the plan to change this behavior and adjust build processes > > accordingly. >=20 > Sounds like a plan. To keep the current behavior, I tested that adding a = os-release.bbappend with BUILD_ID set to the current git command would buil= d the image with the value as it is today. I don't actually have very strong opinions on this and didn't realize right= away that this meant we _weren't_ making a change. I avoided weighing in before= to just be another "+1". Shouldn't we attempt to match what upstream Yocto does? Doesn't doing (mos= tly) nothing cause us to not fix the usability issue that keeps getting raised a= bout the code-update flow not accepting a simple rebuild? I don't believe that you can currently make a 100% reproducible build as it= is, so I don't see this as a hard requirement to deviate from Yocto and if some= one does want to avoid a changing BUILD_ID we already give them the tools for i= t. --=20 Patrick Williams --Uh+HHm87xErqZtex Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEBGD9ii4LE9cNbqJBqwNHzC0AwRkFAmF5ybAACgkQqwNHzC0A wRnNRg//UfPY64nww13jkB80yuGDQx9IeknN4O5BclEj9abMeT+0OXP49DlWQKXn oANBKskpyA6bPk2UXxspFtWfvmBkqNzAzE4otAjlfWrVMeSO6z9zfvCbzKBj5xOU QhV1Q25R9tXaJlEDuKepa4mHNNOcBt3fEMSKZkWSIhLUvuF4sDg2BsYgvbu++cD0 7zY0OI7L5oD7mhrbW19Jy/Zlw0eAaCo3nQTPecvsD2FsnN72QqLn6JKs0bC7EtSP 9KuoP8tY04wBaaZ8veWaNSHe3ic3OETdLI4r96weVUZaNkw1bTAZPk1460ciQfxb Xceb9kV1iy8KCOm9dwOqgISzGTI0Oj0Q4JN47cJmazHfzrd+p5Zv814omeqdW57O 1ArPnD0utotcJSZuHHtTnffH2qhECPNiJBhqtR9VS27NLfnaRc11hO1/4rfZDMnU cbcChSonO2hE5RKCw5ORfy1lSBmeUzKU8/LwYgQ4wCANuGPEtiltEftyB9Iohr9k ESZsSm3z9aukzniJLRhCLuN2PPwYE2xmPeHjTbzdGVJaxzHSyBWA7LqYD1/4mhvJ kt239uonSMUJATySspugTlqFeht2wN3YyoMuqc39KtNYX9IiEsuhAOO9JQp8wDow iTsDUKKoXC7k/gp6TKpa48872jwuE08pmUTp0ew20lP3yWNvAS0= =NaKu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Uh+HHm87xErqZtex--