Daniel, Matthias,
admittedly I haven't been aware of datefudge so far; seems to me like
both mini-tools have been developed independent of each other since
around 2003.
From looking at datefudge 1.14 (is that the most recent version?), I'd
claim that libfaketime currently provides a superset of the
functionality, but as you already wrote, datefudge will do for many
purposes.
Actually, if you could point out in more detail how you'd like
libfaketime to be enhanced, e.g. how the time specification syntax could
be improved from your perspective, I'm certainly interested in working
on that. I didn't find libfaketime's syntax so different from your
datefudge example call, but maybe I'm missing something here.
On the other hand, this means that I would stick to libfaketime as my
code base, and I think that matches Matthias' preferences as well. It
certainly shouldn't hurt to have more than one tool to choose from (of
course, that's my personal opinion, and might not match Debian's package
policies).
Best regards,
Wolfgang
Daniel Kahn Gillmor schrieb:
This is in reference to my proposal to package libfaketime for debian,
found here:
http://bugs.debian.org/495630
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
