| 1 |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 09:17:46PM +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote: |
| 2 |
> marduk wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:09:38 -0700, "Imran Sher Rafique" |
| 5 |
> ><imran@×××××××.org> said: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >>I hope this doesn't come across as too much of a rant. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >>Summary |
| 11 |
> >>------- |
| 12 |
> >>Is it accepted practice to allow for changes in an ebuild without |
| 13 |
> >>changing the |
| 14 |
> >>ebuild version number? |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> >Unfortunately yes ;-). This also has been a problem for |
| 19 |
> >packages.gentoo.org code, because I basically have to make a series of |
| 20 |
> >assumptions as to when an ebuild is considered "new" or "updated". |
| 21 |
> >Originally I thought I could just just look at the timestamps on the |
| 22 |
> >ebuilds, but that turned out to be a very bad determiniation of when an |
| 23 |
> >ebuild has changed. Then I thought revision numbers, but that's |
| 24 |
> >innacurate too. Basically now it comes down to looking at the current |
| 25 |
> >ebuild in portage and comparing it to the last time I looked at it. |
| 26 |
> >It's much more expensive, because you have to look at *every* ebuild, |
| 27 |
> >not just "ebuilds changed since x date/time" or "ebuilds newer than |
| 28 |
> >version y". Oh no, now I sound like I'm ranting ;-) |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> >-m |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> Why you could not use ctime/mtime ? Isn't possible to make a check like |
| 34 |
> you do now but only on a filtered by "mtime" list of ebuild ? |
| 35 |
> A command like this |
| 36 |
> # find . -name "*.ebuild" -and -mtime "-7" -or -ctime "-7" |
| 37 |
Actually... nope. :) |
| 38 |
You're forgetting about eclass changes, which can adjust metadata |
| 39 |
(deps) of an ebuild w/out the ebuild ever being modified... |
| 40 |
~brian |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives