Gábor Boskovits <boskov...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 14., V, 8:43): > > Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. > 14., V, 5:35): > > > > Hi Gábor and Vagrant, > > > > Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> 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 <boskov...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Björn Höfling <bjoern.hoefl...@bjoernhoefling.de> ezt írta (időpont: > > > 2018. okt. 12., P, 20:01): > > >> > > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:35:51 +0200 > > >> Gábor Boskovits <boskov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Gábor Boskovits <boskov...@gmail.com> 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