From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Boskovits?= Subject: Re: Making javadoc reproducible Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 21:19:28 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20181012200135.505ba447@alma-ubu> <87y3b32ehe.fsf@aikidev.net> <87a7nh8ako.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46631) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gBlvS-0004CA-Ok for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 15:19:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gBlvR-0006tX-Kh for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 15:19:42 -0400 Received: from mail-it1-x135.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]:40433) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gBlvR-0006sy-Fr for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 15:19:41 -0400 Received: by mail-it1-x135.google.com with SMTP id i191-v6so24743301iti.5 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 12:19:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: Chris Marusich Cc: Vagrant Cascadian , Guix-devel G=C3=A1bor Boskovits ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 201= 8. okt. 14., V, 8:43): > > Chris Marusich ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2018. = okt. > 14., V, 5:35): > > > > Hi G=C3=A1bor and Vagrant, > > > > Vagrant Cascadian writes: > > > > > There's been some discussion about this in Debian and in reproducible > > > builds: > > > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/783938 > > > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsInDocumentatio= nGeneratedByJavadoc > > > > > > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/timest= amps_in_documentation_generated_by_javadoc_issue.html > > > > > > Hope it's useful! > > > > Thank you for the links! > > > > Yes, thank you! > > > G=C3=A1bor Boskovits writes: > > > > > Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling ezt =C3= =ADrta (id=C5=91pont: > > > 2018. okt. 12., P, 20:01): > > >> > > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:35:51 +0200 > > >> G=C3=A1bor Boskovits wrote: > > >> > > >> > G=C3=A1bor Boskovits ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91= pont: 2018. okt. > > >> > 12., P, 19:00): > > >> > > > > >> > > Hello guix, > > >> > > > > >> > > 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 call= s. > > >> > > 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, bu= t 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 upstre= am? > > > > > > Ok, i will go for it, and try to get it upsreamed for jdk8 and jdk11. > > > > Be sure to check out the links Vagrant posted. Specifically this one: > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/783938 > > > > In that bug report, Samuel Thibault says: "Perhaps javadoc could be mad= e > > to use by default the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable when it is > > defined?" There seems to be agreement that teaching javadoc to honor > > the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable would be preferable to > > unconditionally disabling the timestamp behavior. > > > > Yes, I've also came to that conclusion reading the discussion, andI > have a came up with a patch. > I'm testing it right now, will report back if I have the results. The results are good. You can see the patch at http://issues.guix.info/issue/33041. However a new bug surfaced. I am now testing a patch related to that. The patch here is in the langtools component, and each javadoc generated fi= le is having a timestamp. Now icedtea6 javadoc respects SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. The patch attached is based on staging, and is not intended for inclusion a= s is. The new bug is in the corba component, the IDL-to-Java compiler embeds a timestamp into the documentation. I am working on a similar patch. Anyone has any information on that? If this is something new, who should we inform? > > > -- > > Chris