Sphinx: copyright substitution and reproducibility

[Chris Lamb]

James Addison wrote:

> Could you elaborate on the other possible reliable solutions?

One reliable solution that is at least a *technical* fit for Sphinx is
simply dropping the copyright line entirely if SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is
present. But I probably dislike that as much as you do…

> I've heard that some technology companies have stopped adding years to their
> copyright notices at all, a practice that in some ways seems logical, but I
> tend to think that smaller entities / individuals might be reluctant to do that […]

I suspect both your observations are broadly correct. Yet I also
believe most projects will continue to add copyright years to their
software essentially forever due to a combination of thinking it's
what we're meant to do, and, after all, it's what everybody else does
so it must be harmless. Like tipping in US restaurants, it's here to
stay regardless of any strongly-held opinions about it.

>> d) Roughly following on from (c): was monkey-patching
>>    datetime.datetime.{now,utcnow,today} etc. ever seriously considered [?]
[…]
> This is a good question - I don't know.  My sense would be that it could risk
> affecting other imported code components (Sphinx extensions, for example)
> in unexpected ways, even at a config-only scope.  I'll try to ask about this
> upstream at an opportune time.

I would hazard this is a no-go, so I wouldn't prioritise asking about
it; I was mostly just curious. Still, if Sphinx was already
monkey-patching/mocking elsewhere…


Best wishes,

-- 
      o
    ⬋   ⬊      Chris Lamb
   o     o     reproducible-builds.org 💠
    ⬊   ⬋
      o