Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Reproducible PS/PDF output #6595

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Reproducible PS/PDF output #6595

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Jun 16, 2016

Several software packages use matplotlib in their building process (mainly to produce PS or PDF documents). To make their build reproducible, it would be great to make matplotlib output reproducible.

To allow reproducible PS and PDF output:

  • honour SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH for timestamps in PS and PDF files.
    See https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
  • get keys sorted so that hatch patterns, images and markers are included with
    a reproducible order in the PDF file. Another solution is to use sorted(six.iteritems(self.hatchPatterns)) in writeHatches (and similar ordering in writeImages and writeMarkers), but this consumes more memory.

This patch has been submitted in debian bug #827361

See also https://reproducible-builds.org/

Reproducible PS/PDF output.
24d3de7 
To allow reproducible output:
* honour SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH for timestamps in PS and PDF files.
  See https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
* get keys sorted so that hatchPatterns, images and markers are included with
  a reproducible order in the PDF file.
See https://reproducible-builds.org/
@tacaswell tacaswell added this to the 2.0.1 (next bug fix release) milestone Jun 16, 2016
@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

This may conflict with #6427 which is currently merged to master.

attn @jkseppan

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jun 16, 2016

You're right I did not see that. #6427 corresponds to my sorted in pdfRepr. Should I adapt my patch and rebase to master?

@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

Yes please.

Thanks for being flexible about this.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:12 PM JojoBoulix [email protected]
wrote:

You're right I did not see that. #6427
#6427 corresponds to my
sorted in pdfRepr. Should I adapt my patch and rebase to master?

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#6595 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAMMhftgvxO09-JkLaAA8AB0WIjvT7Dkks5qMXXRgaJpZM4I3Ulf
.

@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2016
Merged
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jun 16, 2016

I don't know how to do that in the same pull request so I created a new one: #6597.

@ghost ghost closed this Jun 16, 2016
@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

Thanks. You can not re-direct a PR like that, opening a new one is the only option.

@QuLogic QuLogic modified the milestones: unassigned, 2.0.1 (next bug fix release) Jun 17, 2016
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
status: duplicate
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@tacaswell @mdboom @QuLogic