From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vagrant Cascadian Subject: Re: Making javadoc reproducible Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:42:53 -0700 Message-ID: <87y3b32ehe.fsf@aikidev.net> References: <20181012200135.505ba447@alma-ubu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58403) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gB2Ot-0005kB-C1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:43:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gB2Os-0002gL-9r for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:43:03 -0400 Received: from cascadia.aikidev.net ([2600:3c01:e000:267:0:a171:de7:c]:60070) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gB2Os-0002fZ-13 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:43:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20181012200135.505ba447@alma-ubu> 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: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_H=C3=B6fling?= , =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits Cc: Guix-devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/TimestampsInDocumentationGener= atedByJavadoc https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/timestamps_i= n_documentation_generated_by_javadoc_issue.html Hope it's useful! live well, vagrant --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCW8DrLQAKCRDcUY/If5cW qn+AAP9g7VJzSkicHYv1Wlp3dLhLETyg6xzIht30Ne7m6HBsoAEA/SxZOfCwrm2Z wT6K8tFjlu/ccn7pTrOqoWXl9WJP9AA= =M0so -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--