1 |
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 03:31:17PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:34:38 -0800 |
3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> > I'd like |
5 |
> > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6b3e00049a1bf35fbf7a5e66d1449553.xml |
6 |
> > to be discussed, specifically zacs form of forced mtime updating of |
7 |
> > /var/db/pkg on vdb modifications |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I've still not had an answer to: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> "Provide proof that all existing and future caches that would rely upon |
12 |
> this validation mechanism are functions purely and exclusively |
13 |
> dependent upon the VDB content, and I shall be happy to make the |
14 |
> change." |
15 |
|
16 |
First I've seen this question actually or at least this particular |
17 |
interesting phrasing. That said, "no" comes to mind, since the |
18 |
requirement you set is daft. |
19 |
|
20 |
The timestamp updating is for whenever the vdb content (addition of a |
21 |
pkg, pkgmoves being applied, removal of a pkg, modification of |
22 |
metadata, etc) is changed. That's all that timestamp is for. Vdb |
23 |
content. |
24 |
|
25 |
In light of what the timestamp is, your demand for proof is pretty off |
26 |
the mark. If you still consider it to be a valid question, please |
27 |
rephrase it and clarify why exactly proof must be provided that people |
28 |
reading that timestamp (which is for vdb content only) will only be |
29 |
using that timestamp for vdb content. |
30 |
|
31 |
Your request is akin to demanding proof that a hammer only be used as |
32 |
a hammer. It's a fricking hammer- it has one use, one way of being |
33 |
used. If someone goes out of their way to be an idiot, they're an |
34 |
idiot, not the specs problem. |
35 |
|
36 |
Seriously, if you're actually worrying about some specific usage case, |
37 |
state it- on the face of it, your request for proof right now makes |
38 |
zero sense. Kindly provide a scenario or elucidation. |
39 |
|
40 |
~harring |