Re: [OE-core][master][PATCH v2] groff: upgrade 1.23.0 -> 1.24.0

[Peng Zhang <peng.zhang1.cn@windriver.com>]

On 3/11/26 23:02, Mathieu Dubois-Briand wrote:
> CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> On Wed Mar 11, 2026 at 2:57 PM CET, Zhang Peng wrote:
>> On 3/11/26 14:03, Mathieu Dubois-Briand wrote:
>>> CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>
>>> On Mon Mar 9, 2026 at 4:08 PM CET, Peng (Paul) (CN) via lists.openembedded.org Zhang wrote:
>>>> From: Zhang Peng <peng.zhang1.cn@windriver.com>
>>>>
>>>> Upgrade to latest revision of 1.24.0.
>>>> - Drop patches included in this release.
>>>> - Add patch to fix test-groff not found in cross-compilation.
>>>> - Add patch to use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in gropdf for reproducible PDF generation.
>>>> - COPYING, LICENSES: Refresh GPLv3 text.
>>>>
>>>> Release Note:[https://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2026-02/msg00149.html]
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Peng <peng.zhang1.cn@windriver.com>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the new version. It looks a bit better, reproducibility test
>>> passed at least once, but we still have failures in some builds. It
>>> seems to be a similar one:
>>>
>>> AssertionError: The following deb packages are different and not in exclusion list:
>>> /srv/pokybuild/yocto-worker/reproducible/build/build-st/reproducibleB-extended/tmp/deploy/deb/./x86-64-v3/groff-doc_1.24.0-r0_amd64.deb
>>> The following rpm packages are different and not in exclusion list:
>>> /srv/pokybuild/yocto-worker/reproducible/build/build-st/reproducibleB-extended/tmp/deploy/rpm/./x86_64_v3/groff-doc-1.24.0-r0.x86_64_v3.rpm
>>>
>>> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/37/builds/3554
>>>
>>> Diffoscope output:
>>> https://valkyrie.yocto.io/pub/repro-fail/oe-reproducible-20260310-jxtz43x1/packages/diff-html/
>> HI, Mathieu
>>
>> It's very strange - I cannot reproduce this issue on my local Ubuntu
>> 22.04 system. From the Yocto autobuilder system logs, I can't find any
>> useful hints to analyze the failure.
>> My suspicion is related to the host environment. The autobuilder uses
>> Fedora 40 while I'm testing on Ubuntu, but I don't think this difference
>> should cause the failure.
>> Any help or insights on this would be greatly appreciated.
>>
> Hi Peng,
>
> So on the autobuilder we are testing with multiple distributions. This
> reproducibility issue did happen with multiple workers, with different
> distributions.
>
> One first note about the reproducibility test. As you might have seen,
> we are comparing the output of two builds:
> - The first build, left side of diffoscope, is made using the
>    sstate-cache, so the document might have been built on any worker.
> - The second build, right side of diffoscope is made without the
>    sstate-cache: the pdf have been generated on the worker used for the
>    build.
>
> We had 3 test failures so far:
> - One on fedora 40:
>    https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/37/builds/3554
> - One on alma 8:
>    https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/37/builds/3553
> - One on debian 12:
>    https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/37/builds/3556
>
> One interesting thing is, the output of both alma 8 and debian 12 looks
> the same, if we compare the right side of the diffoscope output.
>
> So, depending on something, probably the distribution, we have at least
> 3 different outputs:
> - A first version (A), generated on an unknown distribution has reached the
>    sstate-cache: this is the one we see on the diffoscope output on
>    each builds.
> - A second version (B), generated on Fedora 40 worker. Output differs
>    with A on the ipk generation.
> - A third version (C), generated either on alma 8 or Debian 12. Output
>    differs with A on the deb generation.
>
> So one idea might be to try to build the package in two different
> dockers, one Fedora 40, one Debian 12. If you are a bit lucky, you might
> get some different output.

thanks very much for your informaion.

V3 send

> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
> --
> Mathieu Dubois-Briand, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
>