<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
      <blockquote type="cite">On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
        <br>
        <blockquote type="cite">Hi Douglas,
          <br>
          <br>
          You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit
          e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
          <br>
          <br>
          <blockquote type="cite">-# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
            is determined, it is stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
            <br>
            +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is
            stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
            <br>
            +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the
            do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
            <br>
            +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the
            appropriate SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
            <br>
            +#
            <br>
          </blockquote>
          <br>
          But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was
          to replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
          <br>
          <br>
          do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
          <br>
               mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
          <br>
               date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" &gt; ${SDE_FILE}
          <br>
          }
          <br>
          <br>
          What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do
          here ?
          <br>
          <br>
        </blockquote>
        <br>
        FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
        <br>
        <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&amp;id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce">http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&amp;id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce</a>
        <br>
        <br>
        for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
        <br>
        <br>
        But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being
        in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
        <br>
        <br>
        /Jacob
        <br>
      </blockquote>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It
      does make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as
      you suggest.</p>
    <p>Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:</p>
    <ul>
      <li>Should the new function not be called first, so that it takes
        priority over the git, known files, and youngest file functions?
        If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, then they want
        it to take priority.<br>
      </li>
      <li>As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed
        from BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the
        whitelist in the first place.<br>
      </li>
    </ul>
  </body>
</html>