> > > I think a better question would be to add 'on Windows' to what you're asking, > > because > > > I don't see why we should all have to put up with this BS just because of a Linux > > > distro. > > > > "This BS"? When on earth have you ever actually used this information, or are you > > just arguing for the sake of arguing? > > I've restored backups from CD before (where file mod dates have been lost during > burning etc.) and always found it handy to see when things were built. > > what we've replaced it with is just an additional version number, it tells you > nothing of when the software was built, so we've essentially dropped a perfectly > useful human readable field of data for the sake of some dumb linux distro.
Except Debian is probably one of the top 5 Linux distributions, and it makes perfect sense if you think of it from the perspective of being able to make reproducible builds. Ideally, the user should be able to reproduce an identical binary to the one that's currently being shipped. The fact that you're fucking ignorant that you think that Debian is "some dumb linux distro" is evidence enough that you don't have a fucking clue and have no basis for calling any kind of shots when it comes to this sort of feature.
For someone who bitches as much as you do as to the lack of contributors, you sure don't seem to give a fuck about supporting a feature that would mean more contributors. The fuck is wrong with you?
Index 
Flat 
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
Reply
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
