| 1 |
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 06:02:28PM -0800, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 12:11 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 02/14/2010 04:36 AM, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > This gets nasty... you're basically talking about the rpm equivalent |
| 5 |
> > > of EPOCH. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > Not a fan of an adhoc UUID (especially since it'll become standard |
| 8 |
> > > via portage doing it), but a *timestamp* for the build, labeled as |
| 9 |
> > > such, gets you what you want and is usable for other things- detecting |
| 10 |
> > > when to rebuild a scm package for example. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > That route gets my vote, and should also address your intentions. |
| 13 |
> > > ~harring |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Ok, then how about a vdb entry named CTIME that contains an integer |
| 16 |
> > number of seconds since the unix Epoch? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> That would be UNIXTIME vs CTIME I'd think. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
How about a more descriptive name... build_time or something similar. |
| 21 |
Yes, CTIME means creation time, but I'd rather not overload terms that |
| 22 |
have specific meanings already just for the sake of saving a few chars |
| 23 |
in typing the filename in... |
| 24 |
~harring |
Archives