Re: Making javadoc reproducible

[Gábor Boskovits]

Gábor Boskovits <address@hidden> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt.
14., V, 8:43):
>
> Chris Marusich <address@hidden> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt.
> 14., V, 5:35):
> >
> > Hi Gábor and Vagrant,
> >
> > Vagrant Cascadian <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > Hope it's useful!
> >
> > Thank you for the links!
> >
>
> Yes, thank you!
>
> > Gábor Boskovits <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > Björn Höfling <address@hidden> ezt írta (időpont:
> > > 2018. okt. 12., P, 20:01):
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:35:51 +0200
> > >> Gábor Boskovits <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Gábor Boskovits <address@hidden> ezt írta (időpont: 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 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?
> > >
> > > 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 made
> > 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 file is
having a timestamp. Now icedtea6 javadoc respects SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.
The patch attached is based on staging, and is not intended for inclusion as 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