Quoting Paul Gevers (2022-10-13 10:00:42) > Please also consider supporting the nodoc build profile. We are aware > that nodoc is regularly used in a non-reproducible way (as intended, > but with this consequence), so checking for correctness of this > profile may be a bit harder. Ideally, using the profile would just > make documentation binaries virtually empty. No. Ideally, using the nodoc profile would make documentation binaries not be emitted at all. This then also makes checking for correctness a lot easier because then all binary packages built with the nodoc profile will be bit-by-bit identical if your source package builds reproducibly. This can be achieved by adding this to the binary package stanza in d/control: Package: foo-doc Architecture: all Build-Profiles: <!nodoc> Then, in d/rules you can surround code that creates the foo-doc package with a conditional like this one: ifneq (,$(filter foo-doc,$(shell dh_listpackages))) # do stuff needed to build foo-doc endif Using dh_listpackages you also automatically catch other cases in which foo-doc might not get built other than the nodoc build profile being active, for example for an arch:any-only build. Also, do not forget to add the build dependencies necessary to build foo-doc to Build-Depends-Indep instead of keeping them in Build-Depends if your foo-doc package is Architecture:all. Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature