public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tristan Partin <[email protected]>
To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Make documentation builds reproducible
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 13:44:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CV0ZWW3XIVPU.1CNCLI07JM8Z@gonk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
On Wed Aug 23, 2023 at 2:24 PM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Somewhere at PGCon, I forgot exactly where, maybe in the same meeting
> where we talked about getting rid of distprep, we talked about that the
> documentation builds are not reproducible (in the sense of
> https://reproducible-builds.org/). This is easily fixable, the fix is
> available upstream
> (https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/issues/54) but not
> released. We can backpatch that into our customization layer. The
> attached patch shows it.
I am a tiny bit confused here. The commit that solved the issue was
merged into the master branch in 2018. GitHub lists the lastest release
as being in 2020. A quick git command shows this has been in releases
since December of 2018.
$ git --no-pager tag --contains 0763160
ndw-test-001
snapshot-2018-12-07-01
snapshot-ndw-test/2019-10-04
snapshot/2018-09-28-172
snapshot/2018-09-28-173
snapshot/2018-09-28-174
snapshot/2018-09-28-175
snapshot/2018-09-29-176
snapshot/2018-09-29-177
snapshot/2018-09-30-178
snapshot/2018-09-30-179
snapshot/2018-10-01-180
snapshot/2018-10-02-183
snapshot/2018-10-02-184
snapshot/2018-10-16-185
snapshot/2018-10-16-186
snapshot/2018-10-21-188
snapshot/2018-11-01-191
snapshot/2019-10-05-bobs
snapshot/2020-05-28-pdesjardins
snapshot/2020-06-03
Is there anything I am missing? Is Postgres relying on releases older
than snapshot-2018-12-07-01? If so, is it possible to up the minimum
version?
> I had actually often wanted this during development. When making
> documentation tooling changes, it's useful to be able to compare the
> output before and after, and this will eliminate false positives in that.
>
> This patch addresses both the HTML and the FO output. The man output is
> already reproducible AFAICT. Note that the final PDF output is
> currently not reproducible; that's a different issue that needs to be
> fixed in FOP. (See
> https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsInPDFGeneratedByApacheFOP.)
I think reproducibility is very important. Thanks for taking this on!
--
Tristan Partin
Neon (https://neon.tech)
view thread (4+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Make documentation builds reproducible
In-Reply-To: <CV0ZWW3XIVPU.1CNCLI07JM8Z@gonk>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox