Re: final steps for reproduceable builds.

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Mar 10,  1:49pm, perry%piermont.com@localhost ("Perry E. Metzger") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: final steps for reproduceable builds.

| 
| christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas) writes:
| > | > 2. the yes or no variable names have MK in front of them typically, the
| > | >    AR_DFLAG one makes me think I should set it to D or nothing.
| > | 
| > | I know, but it doesn't really seem to fit into the naming scheme very
| > | organically. We're not making or not making something based on the
| > | flag. The name bothers me too -- both ways.
| >
| > Yes, we should come up with a better name. I am of the opinion of having
| > on MKDETERMINISTIC tunable for the build.
| 
| Fine, but we need something for each component too, and we need a name
| for that specifically here -- something that reflects that what we're
| dealing with is very specifically the "D" flag to ar on bsd.lib.mk
| built libraries.
| 
| Any ideas on a name for *that*? I've been unable to think of a good one.

MKARZERO? But I don't know about making too many tunables available to the
user, they make things hard to test and maintain. Why don't you use
MKREPEATABLE/MKDETERMINISTIC do that for now and we can add other things to
it as we see fit?

christos