After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 777332 - loaders.cache entry order not stable (gdk-pixbuf 2.34.0)
loaders.cache entry order not stable (gdk-pixbuf 2.34.0)
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 783592
Product: gdk-pixbuf
Classification: Platform
Component: loaders
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gdk-pixbuf-maint
gdk-pixbuf-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2017-01-16 15:03 UTC by danny.milo
Modified: 2017-08-14 22:30 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
Make loaders.cache order stable (1.47 KB, patch)
2017-01-16 15:03 UTC, danny.milo 		none Details | Review
Make loaders.cache order stable; fix warning (1.63 KB, patch)
2017-01-16 15:13 UTC, danny.milo 		none Details | Review

Description danny.milo 2017-01-16 15:03:25 UTC 
Created attachment 343561 [details] [review]
Make loaders.cache order stable

We are trying to make the build of gdk-pixbuf reproducible. In the course of that we noticed that the order of the entries in "loaders.cache" is not stable. It depends on the environment which order they will be in. So if one builds it twice it's possible that this file will change and thus the build will not be reproducible.
Comment 1 danny.milo 2017-01-16 15:13:33 UTC 
Created attachment 343562 [details] [review]
Make loaders.cache order stable; fix warning
Comment 2 Bastien Nocera 2017-08-14 22:30:58 UTC 
Bug 783592 had a version of that patch that was closer to our coding style, and contained the patch pretty much ready for committing, so closing this earlier bug as a duplicate. Thanks for your contribution though!

Thanks for taking the time to report this.
This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 783592 ***