RFR: 8264449: Enable reproducible builds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH [v5]

[John Neffenger]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 20:53:50 GMT, John Neffenger <jgneff at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This pull request allows for reproducible builds of JavaFX on Linux, macOS, and Windows by defining the `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` environment variable. For example, the following commands create a reproducible build:
>> 
>> 
>> $ export SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=$(git log -1 --pretty=%ct)
>> $ bash gradlew sdk jmods javadoc
>> $ strip-nondeterminism -v -T $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH build/jmods/*.jmod
>> 
>> 
>> The three commands:
>> 
>> 1. set the build timestamp to the date of the latest source code change,
>> 2. build the JavaFX SDK libraries, JMOD archives, and API documentation, and
>> 3. recreate the JMOD files with stable file modification times and ordering.
>> 
>> The third command won't be necessary once Gradle can build the JMOD archives or the `jmod` tool itself has the required support. For more information on the environment variable, see the [`SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH`][1] page. For more information on the command to recreate the JMOD files, see the [`strip-nondeterminism`][2] repository. I'd like to propose that we allow for reproducible builds in JavaFX 17 and consider making them the default in JavaFX 18.
>> 
>> #### Fixes
>> 
>> There are at least four sources of non-determinism in the JavaFX builds:
>> 
>> 1. Build timestamp
>> 
>>     The class `com.sun.javafx.runtime.VersionInfo` in the JavaFX Base module stores the time of the build. Furthermore, for builds that don't run on the Hudson continuous integration tool, the class adds the build time to the system property `javafx.runtime.version`.
>> 
>> 2. Modification times
>> 
>>     The JAR, JMOD, and ZIP archives store the modification time of each file.
>> 
>> 3. File ordering
>> 
>>     The JAR, JMOD, and ZIP archives store their files in the order returned by the file system. The native shared libraries also store their object files in the order returned by the file system. Most file systems, though, do not guarantee the order of a directory's file listing.
>> 
>> 4. Build path
>> 
>>     The class `com.sun.javafx.css.parser.Css2Bin` in the JavaFX Graphics module stores the absolute path of its `.css` input file in the corresponding `.bss` output file, which is then included in the JavaFX Controls module.
>> 
>> This pull request modifies the Gradle and Groovy build files to fix the first three sources of non-determinism. A later pull request can modify the Java files to fix the fourth.
>> 
>> [1]: https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/source-date-epoch/
>> [2]: https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/strip-nondeterminism
>
> John Neffenger has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains seven commits:
> 
>  - Make build of SDK ZIP bundle reproducible
>  - Merge branch 'master' into allow-reproducible-builds
>  - Merge branch 'master' into allow-reproducible-builds
>  - Include WebKit shared library for Windows
>    
>    Enable reproducible builds of the native WebKit shared library for
>    Windows (jfxwebkit.dll) when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is defined.
>  - Include media shared libraries for Windows
>    
>    Enable reproducible builds of the native media shared libraries for
>    Windows when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is defined. The libraries are:
>    
>      fxplugins.dll
>      glib-lite.dll
>      gstreamer-lite.dll
>      jfxmedia.dll
>  - Enable reproducible builds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
>  - 8238650: Allow to override buildDate with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH

Thanks for the great comments, Kevin. I'm looking into the issues you raised.

Would it be possible to coordinate the reviews of this pull request? My previous [set of tests in June][1] required 28 builds on three platforms and took me over four days to run and test. I would prefer to do that just one more time.

So my plan is to address each of the review comments from @kevinrushforth, @johanvos, and @tiainen, but merge the master branch and do a final round of testing only after all three reviews are done and I have addressed each of the reviewers' comments. Would that work? Should I also wait for @arun-Joseph and @sashamatveev to re-review the parts they looked at before?

[1]: https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/446#issuecomment-861000786

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/446