| 1 |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:53:04AM -0700, marduk wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:09:38 -0700, "Imran Sher Rafique" |
| 4 |
> <imran@×××××××.org> said: |
| 5 |
> > I hope this doesn't come across as too much of a rant. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Summary |
| 8 |
> > ------- |
| 9 |
> > Is it accepted practice to allow for changes in an ebuild without |
| 10 |
> > changing the |
| 11 |
> > ebuild version number? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Unfortunately yes ;-). This also has been a problem for |
| 14 |
> packages.gentoo.org code, because I basically have to make a series of |
| 15 |
> assumptions as to when an ebuild is considered "new" or "updated". |
| 16 |
> Originally I thought I could just just look at the timestamps on the |
| 17 |
> ebuilds, |
| 18 |
Relying on mtime of an ebuild and it's eclass should suffice. |
| 19 |
Any changes that don't affect any of those timestamps portage won't |
| 20 |
handle properly from the cache perspective... |
| 21 |
~brian |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives