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.
> > 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.
However, a couple hundred projects heed this standard along with most distributions. Does your nitpicking really matter?
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.
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.