3 ms·

But that doesn’t still make the specification “standardised” for anyone else. I hate arguing semantics because it’s usually a worthless argument. But the probl

But that doesn’t still make the specification “standardised” for anyone else. I hate arguing semantics because it’s usually a worthless argument. But the problem here is people are specifically arguing that Reproducible Builds have standardised something when they have not. If you still want to use their specification then that’s grand. You don’t need a specification standardised for it to be relevant. However on the very specific point of whether this is a standard, I’m yet to see any proof that anyone has actually standardised the specification. All I’m reading is “but they say it is” and frankly that’s not enough to make a standard.

Foxboron 5y ago
I wrote "Reproducible Builds has standardized". I made no assertions how this is recognized in the wider ecosystem. However, a couple hundred projects heed this standard along with most distributions. Does your nitpicking really matter?
- laumars 5y ago
  It does when you tersely react to other people’s comments stating they should follow “standards” (which you now finally agree are not a standard). If your comment wasn’t so rude from the outset then I wouldn’t have nitpicked your statement. I think there’s some “law” people often quite about people who correct other people that applies to your post.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
capableweb 5y ago
> But that doesn’t still make the specification “standardised” for anyone else. Of course not, and no one has claimed that this is a globally recognized standard. The only thing that has been claimed is that they have standarized it for _themselves_. It's important to get semantics right, and it's equally important to really read and understand what's being said, and not assume something "more" is being said than what is really said.
- laumars 5y ago
  > Of course not, and no one has claimed that this is a globally recognized standard. > > Reproducible Builds has standardized "SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH" for exactly this usecase. > It's important to get semantics right, and it's equally important to really read and understand what's being said I’d say either you’re wrong or the GP was unclear in his statement. Either way I don’t buy your attempt to shift the responsibility of error into me.

Foxboron 5y ago

I wrote "Reproducible Builds has standardized". I made no assertions how this is recognized in the wider ecosystem. However, a couple hundred projects heed this standard along with most distributions. Does your nitpicking really matter?

laumars 5y ago
It does when you tersely react to other people’s comments stating they should follow “standards” (which you now finally agree are not a standard). If your comment wasn’t so rude from the outset then I wouldn’t have nitpicked your statement. I think there’s some “law” people often quite about people who correct other people that applies to your post.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

capableweb 5y ago

> But that doesn’t still make the specification “standardised” for anyone else. Of course not, and no one has claimed that this is a globally recognized standard. The only thing that has been claimed is that they have standarized it for _themselves_. It's important to get semantics right, and it's equally important to really read and understand what's being said, and not assume something "more" is being said than what is really said.

laumars 5y ago
> Of course not, and no one has claimed that this is a globally recognized standard. > > Reproducible Builds has standardized "SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH" for exactly this usecase. > It's important to get semantics right, and it's equally important to really read and understand what's being said I’d say either you’re wrong or the GP was unclear in his statement. Either way I don’t buy your attempt to shift the responsibility of error into me.