| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 05:14:38AM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/26/2011 04:49 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > No, we can't have the manpage pre-rendered in the tarball, because that |
| 4 |
> > makes the tarball different every time it is created since the |
| 5 |
> > date/timestamps in the archive will be different. In other words, it is |
| 6 |
> > not possible for anyone to ever reproduce the exact same tarball that we |
| 7 |
> > produce. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The varience in timestamp has been no problem for other projects |
| 10 |
> including genkernel. If all that varies is the time stamp and it |
| 11 |
> matters to you, it would be easy to add a section to the Makefile |
| 12 |
> setting the timestamp to a hardcoded value. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That is already done if you use "git archive" to generate the archive |
| 15 |
and use the tags in the git repository along with that. For an example, |
| 16 |
look at openrc's git repository. |
| 17 |
> > I see two ways around this: We can either make asciidoc a build time |
| 18 |
> > dependency so that the user can use something like "make manpage" to |
| 19 |
> > generate the manpage |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That adds quite some load on indirect dependencies for more or less |
| 22 |
> nothing, as seen with Matt earlier. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That is exactly why I prefer the other option I mention below. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> > or we can go back to the manpage that is in the git |
| 27 |
> > repository. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Do I have to list reasons against this option? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I think it would be helpful if you did since you did the conversion |
| 32 |
without discussing it with the rest of the team first. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
William |
Archives