| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> For most features the block is the need for Portage to implement the |
| 4 |
> feature. If I read the thread correctly, Portage already implements |
| 5 |
> what is wanted here so it's just a matter of agreeing on the |
| 6 |
> specification. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Not completely. Portage preserves modification times already when |
| 9 |
merging, but if we make updating of old timestamps mandatory (as |
| 10 |
Ciaran has suggested), then this part is still missing in Portage. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
But as far as I can see, something along the lines of the following |
| 13 |
two commands [1] should be all that is needed: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
find "${D}" -type f \( -newermt "@${stamp1}" -o -print0 \) \ |
| 16 |
| ${XARGS} -0 touch -c -d "@${stamp1}" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
find "${D}" -type f -newermt "@${stamp2}" -print0 \ |
| 19 |
| ${XARGS} -0 touch -c -d "@${stamp2}" |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Variables stamp1 and stamp2 would be assigned from $(date -u +"%s") |
| 22 |
before pkg_setup and after src_install, respectively. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The second find command is sort of redundant, since it shouldn't |
| 25 |
happen that ${D} contains files with timestamps from the future. |
| 26 |
Maybe it's better to emit a warning in this case. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ulrich |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
[1] For "find -newermt" we will need >=findutils-4.3.3 which shouldn't |
| 31 |
be a problem because 4.3.4 went stable in May 2007. |
Archives