| 1 |
On Wed, 07 May 2008 00:44:28 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> and I think that would be the correct thing to do, but either way I'd |
| 4 |
> like PMS to specify what should happen wrt to mtimes, so that I can |
| 5 |
> rely on that. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
PMS makes no guarantee as to what happens with mtimes, which means you |
| 8 |
can't rely upon things happening one way or the other. This is |
| 9 |
deliberate -- preserving mtimes leads to all kinds of weirdness on |
| 10 |
packages that are generated from a raw tar file rather than from a |
| 11 |
build system. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Current work-around is tarring up and untarring to preserve mtimes. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That's not really any good either. The proper solution would be to fix |
| 16 |
whatever it is that's mtime-sensitive. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives