From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4EEC64E7C for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBA6205CA for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730593AbgLBQIq (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:08:46 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:65246 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730588AbgLBQIq (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:08:46 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0375114A79; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:08:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tmz@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=sasl; bh=xr8SMfkBFig8ZzRwq/G5Y9ISIKg=; b=C/OU7a4 UmB2bagYGDnaYlQ1VARWCwZL5wmNgivDP5N2Ckrxtm9hyQFROpXVS+4bPsetOsSq XxmaBO+FIrJwZ6Ok3qPxQYuMzCgzSO1b9KnZOqOfc1Vt133TyeDf/kUtm2JW1+GT ZQD4MMYFDDuqzEIGk6mep7ja3Q+xcU9XWBOM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=sasl; b=krHeUy7/ppBBBDXpb8IVM/yRx67qb2Nvz g9b5Y56NtbQQl08gPomX+QXwp/zUu8GqyqiBLx3I+rKWHDjHllTRWVNfN4tuGZDR nrPRMlZs5zunrTPhAktQwHvFgusutbhnkLVLYu+ovSpAC1aVwLgXGqV8DrA6xEY3 Irc7ZFHOyY= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84FF114A78; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:08:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tmz@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [173.67.178.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8F55114A75; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:07:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tmz@pobox.com) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:07:55 -0500 From: Todd Zullinger To: "brian m. carlson" , Arnout Engelen , git@vger.kernel.org, Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C5gren?= , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: make HTML manual reproducible Message-ID: <20201202160755.GX748@pobox.com> References: <20201201095037.20715-1-arnout@bzzt.net> <20201201154115.GP748@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GIrCAcOpC7mETZ4T" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8B6782D8-34B8-11EB-9445-E43E2BB96649-09356542!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org --GIrCAcOpC7mETZ4T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable brian m. carlson wrote: > On 2020-12-01 at 15:41:15, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> I think this would raise the minimum supported version of >> docbook-xsl to 1.77.1. That might be fine, but we'd >> probably want to make sure it doesn't negatively impact >> OS/distributions which build the docs as a likely group who >> care about reproducible builds. And we'd want to update the >> requirement in INSTALL, of course. >=20 > I don't think that's necessarily the case. I just tested using a random > name with another DocBook project I have and it seems to work fine, so > there shouldn't be a problem with specifying a name undefined in the > stylesheet using xsltproc. Oh, that's very good to know. Thanks for testing the fine details. I checked that works on a CentOS 6 system where the docbook-xsl version is 1.75.2, to test whether an older docbook-xsl is similarly forgiving of unknown --param's. > If we want this to be effective, then yes, people will need to upgrade. > But if they're happy with the old behavior on ancient systems, that > shouldn't be a problem. Indeed. Is it worth mentioning this at all in INSTALL? Something like: - The minimum supported version of docbook-xsl is 1.74. + The minimum supported version of docbook-xsl is 1.74. For consistent + IDs in the HTML version of the user-manual, 1.79.1 or newer is + necessary. perhaps? The explicit mention of the user-manual may be overkill, particularly if we later apply a similar change to other HTML docs (if any other HTML docs even need it)? --=20 Todd --GIrCAcOpC7mETZ4T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iQFEBAEBCAAuBQJfx7vZJxhodHRwczovL3d3dy5wb2JveC5jb20vfnRtei9wZ3Av dG16LmFzYwAKCRBDJZOLvq8M4+D5B/91XeMxJ0hMrfA77H8pxH3ODwVcqBEFaoPP Y1QVJL4j7/sIlqJj14KmpG3fDLU5fsN4JBlmSYLqJ17MOFK+PFEj2wcFe8QOBL70 15xLm3O8RGRkibisAnsEPbXYtJiTqOAxXU+5FzfXpxh5g4V1XhYb8idQljLUHh/7 Ck7ClJrREXT0zzhiotANsDiUXQlXz62Ley6Jw2Iv+BG1aK4RZjZTrYI99ZREmrRa RI5DZMHlKQLLlX/hgpAKf8nyiezSDaTX/mdABeVhwAM6V+C5dY9eWNFx9X/5IGmh xeWZun94dN2Qz94U8Xq6ZhgD2OMj3K+M70XwfttkX528i7UklSu7 =Hz2X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GIrCAcOpC7mETZ4T--