Re: [PATCH] doc: ensure sphinx output is reproducible

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

19/05/2024 19:23, Luca Boccassi:
> On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 18:13, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >
> > 19/05/2024 18:36, Luca Boccassi:
> > > On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 15:01, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > > > 17/05/2024 13:29, Luca Boccassi:
> > > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 17:04, Bruce Richardson
> > > > > <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > > > I would prefer adding an option for reproducible build
> > > > > > > (which is not a common requirement).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Taking a slightly different tack, is it possible to sort the searchindex.js
> > > > > > file post-build, so that even reproducible builds get the benefits of
> > > > > > parallelism?
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the recent attacks with malicious sources being injected in open
> > > > > source projects, reproducible builds are more important than ever and
> > > > > should just be the default.
> > > >
> > > > Yes it should be the default when packaging.
> > > > Why should it be the default for normal builds?
> > >
> > > Build reproducibility is everyone's responsibility, not just Linux
> > > distributions. There should be no difference between a "normal build"
> > > and a "packaging build". As far as I know, it is still fully supported
> > > for DPDK consumers to take the git repository, build it and ship it
> > > themselves - those cases also need their builds to be reproducible.
> >
> > Sorry I really don't understand this point.
> > The goal of a reproducible build is to maintain a stable hash, right?
> > This hash needs to be stable only when it is published, isn't it?
> > So isn't it enough to give a build option for having a reproducible build?
> 
> The goal is that issues breaking reproducibility are bugs and treated
> as such. You wouldn't have a build option to allow buffer overflows or
> null pointer dereferences, and so on. "The program builds
> reproducibly" today and in the future has the same importance as "the
> program doesn't write beyond bounds" or "the program doesn't crash" -
> they are not optional qualities, they are table stakes, and
> regulations are only going to get stricter.

I hear the technical reasons and want to address them, but
I don't understand how regulation comes in an open source project.