On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 08:03:06PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > So do we want to replace the earlier patch with this one? > > Hm, the patch to #829362 (which modifies the patch) is kinda ugly and > almost impossible to mentally parse. Sorry about that. > > So, considering this cleaner patch: > > https://github.com/rtomayko/ronn/pull/98/files > > … I believe we need all of these changes so, yes, we should replace > it. The following hunk demonstrates that it absorbs the previous patch: > > > https://github.com/rtomayko/ronn/pull/98/files#diff-a87e9e80c3a7693175aa8c08bdb48452L70
I tried that, but with this patch the build failed. I rewrote it into a
much less invasive version:
--- a/lib/ronn/document.rb
+++ b/lib/ronn/document.rb
@@ -165,6 +165,7 @@ module Ronn
# the current time.
def date
return @date if @date
+ return Time.at(ENV['SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH'].to_i).gmtime if
ENV['SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH']
return File.mtime(path) if File.exist?(path)
Time.now
end
IMO all the other changes are not really warranted.
With the resulting ruby-ronn binary, I tried both ruby-coveralls and
foodcritic, which are listed in the issue page¹, and they became reproducible.
¹
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/issues/unstable/timestamps_in_manpages_generated_by_ronn_issue.html,
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
