Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=Flowed
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 13:44:34 -0500
Message-Id: <CV0ZWW3XIVPU.1CNCLI07JM8Z@gonk>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter@eisentraut.org>
From: "Tristan Partin" <tristan@neon.tech>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Make documentation builds reproducible
References: <9077b779-a9f8-09c8-6e85-da1ebfba15af@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: <9077b779-a9f8-09c8-6e85-da1ebfba15af@eisentraut.org>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CV0ZWW3XIVPU.1CNCLI07JM8Z%40gonk>
Precedence: bulk

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=20
> where we talked about getting rid of distprep, we talked about that the=
=20
> documentation builds are not reproducible (in the sense of=20
> https://reproducible-builds.org/).  This is easily fixable, the fix is=20
> available upstream=20
> (https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/issues/54) but not=20
> released.  We can backpatch that into our customization layer.  The=20
> attached patch shows it.

I am a tiny bit confused here. The commit that solved the issue was=20
merged into the master branch in 2018. GitHub lists the lastest release=20
as being in 2020. A quick git command shows this has been in releases=20
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=20
than snapshot-2018-12-07-01? If so, is it possible to up the minimum=20
version?

> I had actually often wanted this during development.  When making=20
> documentation tooling changes, it's useful to be able to compare the=20
> 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=
=20
> already reproducible AFAICT.  Note that the final PDF output is=20
> currently not reproducible; that's a different issue that needs to be=20
> fixed in FOP.  (See=20
> https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsInPDFGeneratedByApac=
heFOP.)

I think reproducibility is very important. Thanks for taking this on!=20

--=20
Tristan Partin
Neon (https://neon.tech)