marduk wrote: >On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:09:38 -0700, "Imran Sher Rafique" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >>I hope this doesn't come across as too much of a rant. >> >>Summary >>------- >>Is it accepted practice to allow for changes in an ebuild without >>changing the >>ebuild version number? >> >> > >Unfortunately yes ;-). This also has been a problem for >packages.gentoo.org code, because I basically have to make a series of >assumptions as to when an ebuild is considered "new" or "updated". >Originally I thought I could just just look at the timestamps on the >ebuilds, but that turned out to be a very bad determiniation of when an >ebuild has changed. Then I thought revision numbers, but that's >innacurate too. Basically now it comes down to looking at the current >ebuild in portage and comparing it to the last time I looked at it. >It's much more expensive, because you have to look at *every* ebuild, >not just "ebuilds changed since x date/time" or "ebuilds newer than >version y". Oh no, now I sound like I'm ranting ;-) > >-m > > Why you could not use ctime/mtime ? Isn't possible to make a check like you do now but only on a filtered by "mtime" list of ebuild ? A command like this # find . -name "*.ebuild" -and -mtime "-7" -or -ctime "-7" give you a list of ebuilds created/modified in the last seven days. Isn't this enough to be sure you are looking at all ebuilds modified in the last 24 hours ? At least to cut down the number of ebuilds to check. i.e. I'm assuming it's only a problem of precision
-- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
