Re: Making javadoc reproducible

[Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1671 bytes --]

Hello,

Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> writes:

> On 2018-10-12, Björn Höfling wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:35:51 +0200
>> Gábor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Gábor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt.
>>> 12., P, 19:00):
>>> > I've tracked down the javadoc timestamp problem.
>>> > There is a command line flag for javadoc (notimestamp), that
>>> > disables generating the comment in the docs that contains the
>>> > timestamp. Currently I see two ways forward:
>>> > 1. Track down the calls to javadoc, and add the flag to all calls.
>>> > 2. Write a simple patch to make javadoc behave as if notimestamp was
>>> > specified, whenever
>>> > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is defined.
>>> > I do not think, that the patch produced by 2 is upstreamable, but it
>>> > seems much less work. WDYT?  
>>> 
>>> Also we can simply turn off the timestamp generation
>>> unconditionally...
>>
>> Number 2 sounds good, and why not giving it a try to place it upstream?
>
> There's been some discussion about this in Debian and in reproducible
> builds:
>
>   https://bugs.debian.org/783938
>
>   https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsInDocumentationGeneratedByJavadoc
>
>   https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/timestamps_in_documentation_generated_by_javadoc_issue.html
>
In the above, 2 solutions are mentioned:

1. Strip timestamp in files generated by javadoc
2. Patch javadoc to honor SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH

It seems 2 is easier but 1 is also possible since we have 'xml->sxml'
and friends in guile.

> Hope it's useful!
>
>
> live well,
>   vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]