Re: [PATCH] doc: make HTML manual reproducible

From: Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 2, 2020, 16:07 UTC
Message-ID: <20201202160755.GX748@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <X8bhdyu/OlscI1ME@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>

brian m. carlson wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> 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.
> 
> 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)?

-- 
Todd