multilib conflict with doxygen generated pdf

[Xavier Bachelot]

Hi,

Does anyone have any pointer on how to fix a multilib conflict with a 
doxygen generated pdf file ? I was able to fix the same multilib issue 
with the html files by modifying the footer to not include the 
timestamp, but I don't find any pointer on how to proceed for the pdf file.

Alternatively, I can probably put the doc files in a noarch -doc 
subpackage, or even don't generate the pdf file at all, but I'd rather 
fix the issue in a different way.

Regards,
Xavier

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:12:18 +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
>  I was able to fix the same multilib issue with the html files by
> modifying
>  the footer to not include the timestamp, 
Could you suggest how in:
	popt-devel.i586 conflicts with popt-devel.x86_64
	https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533829


>  or even don't generate the pdf file at all, but I'd rather
> fix the issue in
>  a different way. 
It would be nice to standardize what formats of doc are shipped, I tried it in
	[Fedora-packaging] HTML format preferred over INFO documents
	http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2011-February/007634.html
	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/HtmlDocs

But it did not get accepted.  Currently gdb-doc ships info + html + pdf.


Thanks,
Jan

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  Does anyone have any pointer on how to fix a multilib conflict with a
>  doxygen generated pdf file ? I was able to fix the same multilib issue with
>  the html files by modifying the footer to not include the timestamp, but I
>  don't find any pointer on how to proceed for the pdf file.
>  
The only official doc is on how to modify the html footer
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks#Doxygen_footers
To my knowledge, doxygen was not generating different PDFs on each
separate build until recently. There was no need for instructions for
PDFs.

>  Alternatively, I can probably put the doc files in a noarch -doc
> subpackage,
>  or even don't generate the pdf file at all, but I'd rather fix the issue in
>  a different way.
>  
Yes I think these are the only options at the time.
Best,
Orcan

[Paul Howarth]

On 06/13/2012 01:10 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>  On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anyone have any pointer on how to fix a multilib conflict with a
> > doxygen generated pdf file ? I was able to fix the same multilib issue with
> > the html files by modifying the footer to not include the timestamp, but I
> > don't find any pointer on how to proceed for the pdf file.
> >
>
>  The only official doc is on how to modify the html footer
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks#Doxygen_footers
>  To my knowledge, doxygen was not generating different PDFs on each
>  separate build until recently. There was no need for instructions for
>  PDFs.
>
> > Alternatively, I can probably put the doc files in a noarch -doc subpackage,
> > or even don't generate the pdf file at all, but I'd rather fix the issue in
> > a different way.
> >
>
>  Yes I think these are the only options at the time. 
I don't think the noarch subpackage option will work because I seem to 
recall the sub-packages from the different arch builds get compared at 
the end of the koji task and the build fails if the noarch sub-packages 
are not all the same. Or is that a figment of my imagination?

Paul.

[Kevin Kofler]

Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>  The only official doc is on how to modify the html footer
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks#Doxygen_footers 
Please do NOT add such workarounds to all packages. The doxygen maintainer is
going to ship a fixed doxygen ASAP.

        Kevin Kofler

[Tom Lane]

Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; writes:
>  Does anyone have any pointer on how to fix a multilib conflict with a
>
>  doxygen generated pdf file ? I was able to fix the same multilib issue 
>  with the html files by modifying the footer to not include the 
>  timestamp, but I don't find any pointer on how to proceed for the pdf file. 
Yeah, I find that the sgml to pdf toolchain also likes to put timestamps
into the PDF file.  The solution I've used for many years is to build
the PDF doc once during package preparation, and upload it as an
additional sources file.  This eliminates the timestamp skew problem
and also greatly reduces the BuildRequires footprint of the package.

You can look into the postgresql package if you want to borrow any
details (the generate-pdf.sh script is probably pretty postgresql
specific, but the packaging details around its use might be worth
stealing).

			regards, tom lane

[Rex Dieter]

Xavier Bachelot wrote:

>  Does anyone have any pointer on how to fix a multilib conflict with
> a
>  doxygen generated pdf file ? I was able to fix the same multilib issue
>  with the html files by modifying the footer to not include the
>  timestamp, but I don't find any pointer on how to proceed for the pdf
>  file. 
pretty sure these are all a doxygen packaging bug, it is supposed to default 
timestamps to off, but doesn't erroneously.

I think I got this fixed in 
doxygen-1.8.1.1-2.fc18 :
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=325050

I'll talk to than about getting a fixed build for f17 too

-- rex

[Xavier Bachelot]

On 06/13/2012 08:40 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Xavier Bachelot wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any pointer on how to fix a multilib conflict with a
> > doxygen generated pdf file ? I was able to fix the same multilib issue
> > with the html files by modifying the footer to not include the
> > timestamp, but I don't find any pointer on how to proceed for the pdf
> > file.
>
>  pretty sure these are all a doxygen packaging bug, it is supposed to default
>  timestamps to off, but doesn't erroneously.
>
>  I think I got this fixed in
>  doxygen-1.8.1.1-2.fc18 :
>  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=325050
>
>  I'll talk to than about getting a fixed build for f17 too
>
>  -- rex
>  
Thanks for all the answers and thanks for the fixed doxygen. I'll try to 
build the package I have issue with for F18 asap.

Regards,
Xavier

[Xavier Bachelot]

On 06/14/2012 05:29 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
>  On 06/13/2012 08:40 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone have any pointer on how to fix a multilib conflict with a
> >> doxygen generated pdf file ? I was able to fix the same multilib issue
> >> with the html files by modifying the footer to not include the
> >> timestamp, but I don't find any pointer on how to proceed for the pdf
> >> file.
> >
> > pretty sure these are all a doxygen packaging bug, it is supposed to
> > default
> > timestamps to off, but doesn't erroneously.
> >
> > I think I got this fixed in
> > doxygen-1.8.1.1-2.fc18 :
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=325050
> >
> > I'll talk to than about getting a fixed build for f17 too
> >
> > -- rex
> >
>  Thanks for all the answers and thanks for the fixed doxygen. I'll try to
>  build the package I have issue with for F18 asap.
>   
So the newer doxygen doesn't help with the pdf file. I think the issue
is the default header and footer when no LATEX_HEADER and LATEX_FOOTER
are provided in the doxygen-config contain the timestamp. Should that be
considered as a doxygen bug ?

Regards,
Xavier

[than]

>  >> I think I got this fixed in
>  >> doxygen-1.8.1.1-2.fc18 :
>  >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=325050
>  >> 
>  >> I'll talk to than about getting a fixed build for f17 too
>  >> 
>  >> -- rex
>  > 
>  > Thanks for all the answers and thanks for the fixed doxygen. I'll try to
>  > build the package I have issue with for F18 asap.
>   
it doesn't effect doxygen-1.8.0 in f17 and i don't plan to update new version 
in f17 yet


>  So the newer doxygen doesn't help with the pdf file. I think the
> issue
>  is the default header and footer when no LATEX_HEADER and LATEX_FOOTER
>  are provided in the doxygen-config contain the timestamp. Should that be
>  considered as a doxygen bug ?
>   
 could you please provide a reproduce for this issue?

Thanks

Than

[Xavier Bachelot]

On 06/20/2012 04:26 PM, Than Ngo wrote:
> >>> I think I got this fixed in
> >>> doxygen-1.8.1.1-2.fc18 :
> >>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=325050
> >>>
> >>> I'll talk to than about getting a fixed build for f17 too
> >>>
> >>> -- rex
> >>
> >> Thanks for all the answers and thanks for the fixed doxygen. I'll try to
> >> build the package I have issue with for F18 asap.
> >
>  
>  it doesn't effect doxygen-1.8.0 in f17 and i don't plan to update new version 
>  in f17 yet
>  
>  
> > So the newer doxygen doesn't help with the pdf file. I think the issue
> > is the default header and footer when no LATEX_HEADER and LATEX_FOOTER
> > are provided in the doxygen-config contain the timestamp. Should that be
> > considered as a doxygen bug ?
> >
>  
>   could you please provide a reproduce for this issue?
>   
This build has the pdf file with a different timestamp in the i686 and
x86_64 build.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4189461

The pdf file is /usr/share/doc/libbluray-devel-0.2.2/libbluray.pdf from
libbluray-devel-0.2.2-2.fc18

Regards,
Xavier

[Rex Dieter]

Xavier Bachelot wrote:

>  On 06/20/2012 04:26 PM, Than Ngo wrote:
> >>>> I think I got this fixed in
> >>>> doxygen-1.8.1.1-2.fc18 :
> >>>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=325050
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll talk to than about getting a fixed build for f17 too
> >>>>
> >>>> -- rex
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for all the answers and thanks for the fixed doxygen. I'll try
> >>> to build the package I have issue with for F18 asap.
> >>
> > 
> > it doesn't effect doxygen-1.8.0 in f17 and i don't plan to update new
> > version in f17 yet
> > 
> > 
> >> So the newer doxygen doesn't help with the pdf file. I think the issue
> >> is the default header and footer when no LATEX_HEADER and LATEX_FOOTER
> >> are provided in the doxygen-config contain the timestamp. Should that be
> >> considered as a doxygen bug ?
> >>
> > 
> >  could you please provide a reproduce for this issue?
> > 
>  This build has the pdf file with a different timestamp in the i686 and
>  x86_64 build. 
That's not a problem (and won't cause conflicts).

-- rex

[than]

>  
>  This build has the pdf file with a different timestamp in the i686 and
>  x86_64 build.
>  
>  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4189461
>  
>  The pdf file is /usr/share/doc/libbluray-devel-0.2.2/libbluray.pdf from
>  libbluray-devel-0.2.2-2.fc18
>   
it's a bug in pdftex (part of texlive package) which is used to create pdf 
files. pdftex writes the timestamps "CreationDate (%s)" and "ModDate
(%s)" 
into PDF files.

extract from texk/web2c/pdftexdir/utils.c

-------
void printcreationdate()
{
    initstarttime();
    pdf_printf("/CreationDate (%s)\n", start_time_str);
}

void printmoddate()
{
    initstarttime();
    pdf_printf("/ModDate (%s)\n", start_time_str);
}
-------


Than