On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 20:53:50 GMT, John Neffenger <jgn...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This pull request allows for reproducible builds of JavaFX on Linux, macOS, >> and Windows by defining the `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` environment variable. For >> example, the following commands create a reproducible build: >> >> >> $ export SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=$(git log -1 --pretty=%ct) >> $ bash gradlew sdk jmods javadoc >> $ strip-nondeterminism -v -T $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH build/jmods/*.jmod >> >> >> The three commands: >> >> 1. set the build timestamp to the date of the latest source code change, >> 2. build the JavaFX SDK libraries, JMOD archives, and API documentation, and >> 3. recreate the JMOD files with stable file modification times and ordering. >> >> The third command won't be necessary once Gradle can build the JMOD archives >> or the `jmod` tool itself has the required support. For more information on >> the environment variable, see the [`SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH`][1] page. For more >> information on the command to recreate the JMOD files, see the >> [`strip-nondeterminism`][2] repository. I'd like to propose that we allow >> for reproducible builds in JavaFX 17 and consider making them the default in >> JavaFX 18. >> >> #### Fixes >> >> There are at least four sources of non-determinism in the JavaFX builds: >> >> 1. Build timestamp >> >> The class `com.sun.javafx.runtime.VersionInfo` in the JavaFX Base module >> stores the time of the build. Furthermore, for builds that don't run on the >> Hudson continuous integration tool, the class adds the build time to the >> system property `javafx.runtime.version`. >> >> 2. Modification times >> >> The JAR, JMOD, and ZIP archives store the modification time of each file. >> >> 3. File ordering >> >> The JAR, JMOD, and ZIP archives store their files in the order returned >> by the file system. The native shared libraries also store their object >> files in the order returned by the file system. Most file systems, though, >> do not guarantee the order of a directory's file listing. >> >> 4. Build path >> >> The class `com.sun.javafx.css.parser.Css2Bin` in the JavaFX Graphics >> module stores the absolute path of its `.css` input file in the >> corresponding `.bss` output file, which is then included in the JavaFX >> Controls module. >> >> This pull request modifies the Gradle and Groovy build files to fix the >> first three sources of non-determinism. A later pull request can modify the >> Java files to fix the fourth. >> >> [1]: https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/source-date-epoch/ >> [2]: https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/strip-nondeterminism > > John Neffenger has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains seven commits: > > - Make build of SDK ZIP bundle reproducible > - Merge branch 'master' into allow-reproducible-builds > - Merge branch 'master' into allow-reproducible-builds > - Include WebKit shared library for Windows > > Enable reproducible builds of the native WebKit shared library for > Windows (jfxwebkit.dll) when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is defined. > - Include media shared libraries for Windows > > Enable reproducible builds of the native media shared libraries for > Windows when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is defined. The libraries are: > > fxplugins.dll > glib-lite.dll > gstreamer-lite.dll > jfxmedia.dll > - Enable reproducible builds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH > - 8238650: Allow to override buildDate with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH Thanks for the great comments, Kevin. I'm looking into the issues you raised. Would it be possible to coordinate the reviews of this pull request? My previous [set of tests in June][1] required 28 builds on three platforms and took me over four days to run and test. I would prefer to do that just one more time. So my plan is to address each of the review comments from @kevinrushforth, @johanvos, and @tiainen, but merge the master branch and do a final round of testing only after all three reviews are done and I have addressed each of the reviewers' comments. Would that work? Should I also wait for @arun-Joseph and @sashamatveev to re-review the parts they looked at before? [1]: https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/446#issuecomment-861000786 ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/446
