From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vong Subject: Re: Making javadoc reproducible Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 05:06:10 +0800 Message-ID: <87h8hpsgjh.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20181012200135.505ba447@alma-ubu> <87y3b32ehe.fsf@aikidev.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36267) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gBR7K-0004aL-L1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2018 17:06:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gBR7H-0002ck-GY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2018 17:06:34 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]:34076) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gBR7H-0002cS-9K for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2018 17:06:31 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id f78-v6so2058620pfe.1 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2018 14:06:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87y3b32ehe.fsf@aikidev.net> (Vagrant Cascadian's message of "Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:42:53 -0700") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Guix-devel Cc: Vagrant Cascadian --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, Vagrant Cascadian writes: > On 2018-10-12, Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:35:51 +0200 >> G=C3=A1bor Boskovits wrote: >>> G=C3=A1bor Boskovits ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont:= 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?=20=20 >>>=20 >>> 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/TimestampsInDocumentationGen= eratedByJavadoc > > 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 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQSof2ZdXkE0FM5aU4XzrkvbI+zaGwUCW8JeQwAKCRDzrkvbI+za G0bNAQDxjTcB0xENGjfN3BfFXWYPLBqGA4jGrzo8P75cuByq/AD9GicrHa9QMPEW oKYFJL8lLq0GbZoxDlSH6ez14Ka6Bwc= =PEME -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--