uudoc: use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if set in build environment by kpcyrd · Pull Request #14982 · uutils/coreutils

kpcyrd · 2026-09-30T12:45:09Z

I noticed the Arch Linux reproducible builds environment flags all man pages as non-reproducible, unless the package is built on the same day:

│ ├── usr/share/man/man1/uu-b2sum.1.gz
│ │ ├── uu-b2sum.1
│ │ │ @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
│ │ │  .ie \n(.g .ds Aq \(aq
│ │ │  .el .ds Aq '
│ │ │ -.TH B2SUM 1 "2026-09-17"
│ │ │ +.TH B2SUM 1 "2026-09-29"
│ │ │  .SH NAME
│ │ │  b2sum \- Print or check the BLAKE2b checksums
│ │ │  .SH SYNOPSIS
│ │ │  \fBb2sum\fR [OPTIONS] [FILE]...
│ │ │  .SH DESCRIPTION
│ │ │  Print or check the BLAKE2b checksums
│ │ │  .SH OPTIONS

With this patch the uudoc binary checks if the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable is set, then prefers this value if present. This value is guaranteed to be present in the Arch Linux build environment, Debian, and others.

I've added a test that runs uudoc with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH set and checks the timestamp is set accordingly.

Copilot

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

Invalid epoch values silently fall back to the current date, defeating reproducibility.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 1

Open (1)

Reject malformed SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH instead of using the current date · New

What changed in this PR

Uses SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to make generated manpage dates reproducible.

Changes:

Converts the epoch to a UTC date.
Adds an integration test for deterministic output.

File	Description
`src/bin/uudoc.rs`	Selects the manpage date from the environment.
`tests/uudoc/mod.rs`	Verifies epoch-based manpage dates.

💡 Configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

xtqqczze · 2026-09-30T12:53:50Z

+    let now = env::var("SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH")
+        .ok()
+        .and_then(|source_date_epoch| {
+            let timestamp = source_date_epoch.parse().ok()?;
+            let timestamp = Timestamp::new(timestamp, 0).ok()?;
+            let datetime = timestamp.to_zoned(TimeZone::UTC);
+            Some(datetime)
+        })
+        .unwrap_or_else(Zoned::now);


Suggested change

let now = env::var("SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH")

.ok()

.and_then(|source_date_epoch| {

let timestamp = source_date_epoch.parse().ok()?;

let timestamp = Timestamp::new(timestamp, 0).ok()?;

let datetime = timestamp.to_zoned(TimeZone::UTC);

Some(datetime)

})

.unwrap_or_else(Zoned::now);

let now = env::var("SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH")

.ok()

.and_then(|s| s.parse().ok())

.and_then(|s| Timestamp::new(s, 0).ok())

.map(|t| t.to_zoned(TimeZone::UTC))

.unwrap_or_else(Zoned::now);

seems like it would read easier with combinators

Applied, thanks!

oech3 · 2026-09-30T12:56:41Z

We can just remove build date instead of freezing it. No?

xtqqczze · 2026-09-30T13:00:06Z

I think SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is the technically correct approach.

Copilot

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

The new option chain triggers an enabled Clippy warning that CI treats as an error.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 1

Open (1)

Use map_or_else to satisfy the map_unwrap_or lint · New

Resolved since last review (1)

Reject malformed SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH instead of using the current date

xtqqczze · 2026-09-30T13:15:11Z

    // Convert to string for processing
    let manpage = String::from_utf8(buffer).expect("Invalid UTF-8 in manpage");

+    // Use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if set


Suggested change

// Use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if set

// Use `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` for reproducible builds if set and valid; otherwise use the current time.

Thanks, done

github-actions · 2026-09-30T14:06:10Z

GNU testsuite comparison:

Congrats! The gnu test tests/id/setgid is no longer failing!

Copilot

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

The implementation is focused, cross-platform, and covered by a regression test.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

Resolved since last review (1)

Use map_or_else to satisfy the map_unwrap_or lint

xtqqczze · 2026-10-01T09:45:01Z


 use std::{
    collections::HashMap,
+    env,


error[E0425]: cannot find value `uumain` in module `env` --> /home/runner/work/coreutils/coreutils/target/debug/build/coreutils-09b66ed593f1a000/out/uutils_map.rs:185:23 | 185 | ("env", (env::uumain, env::uu_app)), | ^^^^^^ not found in `env` error[E0425]: cannot find value `uu_app` in module `env` --> /home/runner/work/coreutils/coreutils/target/debug/build/coreutils-09b66ed593f1a000/out/uutils_map.rs:185:36 | 185 | ("env", (env::uumain, env::uu_app)), | ^^^^^^ not found in `env`

I'm not sure why, but this import needs to be removed and the call should use the fully qualified std::env::var instead.

Copilot

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

The implementation is focused, correct, and adequately tested.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings September 30, 2026 12:45

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of kpcyrd September 30, 2026 12:49 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/bin/uudoc.rs Outdated

xtqqczze reviewed Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings September 30, 2026 13:08

kpcyrd force-pushed the source-date-epoch branch from b7f6921 to 8f0e529 Compare September 30, 2026 13:08

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of kpcyrd September 30, 2026 13:10 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/bin/uudoc.rs Outdated

xtqqczze reviewed Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

kpcyrd force-pushed the source-date-epoch branch from 8f0e529 to 96295d7 Compare September 30, 2026 15:46

Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings September 30, 2026 15:46

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of kpcyrd September 30, 2026 15:47 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

xtqqczze reviewed Oct 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

uudoc: use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if set in build environment

90bdb1c

kpcyrd force-pushed the source-date-epoch branch from 96295d7 to 90bdb1c Compare October 1, 2026 10:10

Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings October 1, 2026 10:10

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of kpcyrd October 1, 2026 10:11 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Oct 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

xtqqczze requested a review from sylvestre October 1, 2026 10:19

	// Use SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if set
	// Use `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` for reproducible builds if set and valid; otherwise use the current time.

Uh oh!

Conversation

kpcyrd commented Sep 30, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

xtqqczze Sep 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kpcyrd Sep 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oech3 commented Sep 30, 2026

Uh oh!

xtqqczze commented Sep 30, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

xtqqczze Sep 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kpcyrd Sep 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

Uh oh!

xtqqczze Oct 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kpcyrd Oct 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

github-actions Bot commented Sep 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading