On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Gilles Espinasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Instead to gunzip all .gz files, would it not better to submit patches that > add > -n when gzip run so the files in use will really be the same? > I should say I have made some patches like that but have not reported because > it > was against old version and not current version of packages.
I suppose you could. > And how do you handle binary files that include a building timestamp string > (like libc and perl)? > Normally, those packages always differ because of the time string include. > I have made hack patches removing timestamps on libc, perl and a few other > packages. > But I suspect my hack have no chance to be accepted upstream (maybe except the > gzip -n changes). > > http://ipcop.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ipcop/ipcop/src/patches/glibc-2.3.3_notimestamp.patch?revision=1.1.2.1&view=markup&pathrev=IPCOP_v1_4_0 > > http://ipcop.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ipcop/ipcop/src/patches/perl-5.8.5-notimestamp.patch?view=log&pathrev=IPCOP_v1_4_0 Right. I was doing the same when I was doing ICA regularly. Something like sed -i -e 's/__TIME__/"now"/' -e 's/__DATE__/"today"/' But then you start introducing changes to programs just for your own profiling. Usually, you just look at the textual diff and see if the difference is just due to a date/timestamp. In farce, Ken had some functions that would skip these stamps, but I don't recall how he implemented that. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
