Re: [PATCH] doc: make HTML manual reproducible

[Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1592 bytes --]

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.
> 
> 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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 543 bytes --]