On 05/01/2015 01:46 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> [removing the bug from the recipients list...]
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Reiner Herrmann <rei...@reiner-h.de> wrote:
>> On 05/01/2015 11:30 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
>>> That said, according to
>>> https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsInDocumentationGeneratedByJavadoc
>>> strip-nondeterminism should work around the issue too, anyone got an idea 
>>> why
>>> this doesnt happen?
>> jodconverter uses neither dh, nor cdbs, so strip-nondeterminism is not 
>> called.
> you said you think not many packages call javadoc directly, and
> javahelper now passes -notimestamps. Do we know how many affected
> packages strip-nondeterminism fixes? maybe is the case to remove that
> code from strip-nondeterminism and fix the remaining packages?

Hm, that is a good question.
From the list of currently known unreproducible packages with the javadoc issue 
[1], 8 are calling
javadoc directly in debian/rules.

Other packages with this issue are using maven-debian-helper, which doesn't 
seem to be fixed yet.
This in turn uses libmaven-javadoc-plugin-java to call javadoc, but I haven't 
found the exact location
there yet, where javadoc is called (and how to pass it parameters).

The fixed javahelper is in unstable since a few days, so we could indeed remove 
the code from
strip-nondeterminism and rebuild the packages using javahelper. But I can't 
estimate how many packages
actually are using it and how many others would still require 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to