On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:11:22 +0100 Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The long bug log clearly says that there's no point to try to conserve > timestamps for generated documentation. And I agree with that. Time permitting, would you kindly tell me where it says that? I reread the whole BTS log for #366555 yesterday, but might have missed or even misread something. > However with the new source format we have several changes: > - files in the debian directory are stored in a .tar.gz and thus we > will conserve their timestamp Sounds good. > - but files patched by one or more of the patches in debian/patches/ > will always have a timestamp that advances artificially at each > unpack. This is required because if we don't ajust their timestamp to > a single value, the timestamp difference means that we can have > tricky side-effects like regeneration of some files due to timestamp > skew (e.g. when you patch *.ac or *.in files from autoconf/automake) IANADD, could you or somebody give a less abstract example? Suppose '/usr/share/doc/freeguide/FAQ.html' was dated a week earlier than '/usr/share/doc/freeguide/TODO'; what bad thing would happen? (If it matters, I'm mainly curious about 'doc' dates, not so much binaries.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
